In Ben Stein’s recent box office splash and pro-intelligent design documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” links between Darwinism and the genocidal policies of Adolf Hitler are probed and explored. That link, according to Coral Ridge Ministries, has been historically proven time and time again.
In 2006, Coral Ridge Ministries, one of the largest Christian media ministries in the nation, produced its own documentary on the subject titled, “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy.”
Jerry Newcombe, co-producer of the film, said “Expelled” brought up a fresh examination of the facts – namely that Darwinism, and later, through its racially charged forms of social Darwinism advocating the extermination of “inferior” races, provided Hitler with the springs to launch the most horrific genocide known to man.
“The ideas of Charles Darwin helped fuel the Nazi killing machine, which took the lives of some 10-15 million people,” he said in a statement.
“Among German historians, there’s really not much debate about whether or not Hitler was a social Darwinist. He clearly was drawing on Darwinian ideas. It drove pretty much everything that he did. It was not just a peripheral part of his ideology,” commented Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler and a featured guest on the Coral Ridge Ministries’ television special.
Weikart added that Darwinism was extremely influential throughout German academia during the period and Hitler drew “on what many other scholars, biologists, and geneticists in Germany were preaching and teaching in the early twentieth century.”
Coral Ridge Ministries also cited the words of their late founder and host of “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy,” Dr. D. James Kennedy, to illustrate their point about the enduring connection between Hitler and Darwinism.
“We have had nearly 150 years of the theory of Darwinian evolution. And what has it brought us – whether Darwin intended it or not? Millions of deaths, the destruction of those deemed ‘inferior,’ the devaluing of human life, and increasing hopelessness. Darwin’s legacy has been deadly indeed,” Kennedy said in 2006.
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is a feature-length documentary film about researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
A major part of the film also explores and traces the roots of Darwinism, and its relation to the genocidal policies of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and the major tyrants of the 20th century.
Since its release on April 18, the film has generated over $5.6 million, placing it among the most successful documentary films of all time.
RSS
Chris,
Take care and I'll pray for your safety abroad
Hawk
Hawk,
I have attended several denominations throughout South Carolina, and I have never heard of some movement to "secede" as a Christian community, of course there are always weirdos. I checked out the website, seems the DVD has a lot of great speakers such as Ravi Zacharias. I read some of their books. It seems interesting, I will look into it more. Currently I am not even in America though.
Chris,
"What truth is there that South Carolina has a movement to secede from the union?"
I wasn't talking of the session back in 1860. It's not about racism, it's about new government based on Christian values. My pastor is from Georgia and he says that there is currently a movement by a group of South Carolinians who are talking of seceding shortly.
The Truth Project goes only by this name. You can find it at thetruthproject.org. It is a program from the Focus on the Family's Institute. Dr Del Tackett is the Institute's president and he is the instuctor on the DVD series. It consists of 12 lessons. I highly recomment it as an excellent introduction to Christian worldview development. It's a small group program and Focus is very guarded about who can buy the DVD set. Check with some of the churches in your area about the program if you are interested and have the time.
God Bless and will see you on other threads, I'm sure.
Hawk
Hey Hawk,
"I am a born-again evangelical living in Arizona. I came to Christ a little more than 8 years ago."
Congratulations, and I am happy that you came to have that relationship with Christ.
"I'm 59 this month. My journey started with Behe's Darwin's Black Box in 1996. His logic and reasoning were too powerful to ignore and I realized that only God could have created us. It took a few more years to realize who God was and what He wanted and offered for us. My interest lies in the religious worldview area and I lead/teach The Truth Project."
Good for you, I always that there are two ways that we come to God, both of which are indespensable, one through the brain and logic, the other through the heart.
"Are you familiar with The Truth Project?"
I do not believe so, might it go by a different name? In any case, let me know what it is.
"What truth is there that South Carolina has a movement to secede from the union?"
Not much, I am against what South Carolina did, I am against slavery, and I am adamantly opposed to racism. Yet, I am a realist and I try to understand what the Bible is actually saying.
God Bless, and thanks for the introduction.
Chris333
Hi. Let me introduce myself. I am a born-again evangelical living in Arizona. I came to Christ a little more than 8 years ago. I'm 59 this month. My journey started with Behe's Darwin's Black Box in 1996. His logic and reasoning were too powerful to ignore and I realized that only God could have created us. It took a few more years to realize who God was and what He wanted and offered for us. My interest lies in the religious worldview area and I lead/teach The Truth Project.
Are you familiar with The Truth Project?
What truth is there that South Carolina has a movement to secede from the union?
God Bless
Hawk
ifeelfine,
"Let me ask you, why did most of the slave owners believe in Christianity so strongly and use it in support of their wicked institution?"
Why did Hitler use Christianity, albeit wrongly? Don't judge Christianity based on its abuse.
"And my logic does hold - was slavery a moral issue or just social engineering?"
I didn't say your logic doesn't hold, you said that mine doesn't hold. I did not say that slavery was not a moral issue, nor did I say it was social engineering. I said it was a social ill, a social problem. Christ did not come to solve societies problems, He came to solve our problems by showing us the proper way to live. Having slaves or not is inconsequential. Guess what, the New Testament never once says that governments should not be corrupt, at one point it even says that the government wields force for a reason and that one's authorities must be obeyed (unless of course they go against God's will). What if you have a corrupt government? What if your government is involved in crime? The Bible doesn't address it. That doesn't mean God approves of every government, but He is concerned with how we live our lives.
"You're clearly trying to rationalize something that makes no sense."
You are clearly trying to force Christianity to look bad, so that you can justify your position. My position makes perfect sense, and millions of people can understand that. You don't want to understand it, so that you can have an excuse to throw away parts of the Bible you do not like. Think about it ifeelfine, atheists do not fight against the Bible as hard as you do. Why?
Ifeelfine;
There were slaves during New Testament times. The church issued no edict sweeping away this custom of the old Judaism, but the gospel of Christ with its warm, penetrating love-message mitigated the harshness of ancient times and melted cruelty into kindness. The equality, justice and love of Christ's teachings changed the whole attitude of man to man and master to servant. This spirit of brotherhood quickened the conscience of the age, leaped the walls of Judaism, and penetrated the remotest regions. The great apostle proclaimed these truths: (Gal 3:28) (Eph 6:5-9)...etc.
Christ was a reformer, but not an anarchist. His gospel was dynamic but not dynamitic. It was leaven, electric with power, but permeated with love. Christ's life and teaching were against Judaistic slavery, Roman slavery and any form of human slavery. The love of His gospel and the light of His life were destined, in time, to make human emancipation earth-wide and human brotherhood as universal as His own benign presence.
—International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Ifeelfine;
You seem to lump Christians under the banner of Christianity as one homogenous lot. This is not the case. The northern Protestants were very different than the southern based Anglicans. The Anglican church was corrupted. The south started mainly as a business enterprise where the north began primarily as a Christian community. The southerners were more syncretized (mixture of secular and Christian ways) in their lifestyles and practices. Alexis de Tocqueville describes these southern and northern lifestyle differences very well when addressing the issue of slavery.
Chris: Let me ask you, why did most of the slave owners believe in Christianity so strongly and use it in support of their wicked institution?
And my logic does hold - was slavery a moral issue or just social engineering?
You're clearly trying to rationalize something that makes no sense.
ifeelfine,
"Slavery was not and is not a "social ill." It is the most morally reprehensible thing someone can do to another besides take their life (although some would argue its worse)."
This is your opinion, biblical slavery was not to be lifelong, "slaves" were to be treated with respect and kindly (especially in the New Testament view), and there were many people in society who were utterly poor and life was pain anyways. For these people, many would not have minded being a servant to a person who was willing to take care of them, and not take advantage of them, as the Bible demands.
"Your logic doesn't hold."
You have not proven that.
"Not only that, the Southerners were and still are very religious - perhaps moreso than the northern states. The Northerners were more progressive than the Southerners at that time but that is a different topic."
I am a southerner, from South Carolina, and many people here say they are Christian and go to Church infrequently, but do not live Christian lives at all, and are nearly indistinguishable from secular society.
Let me ask you, why were most of the anti-slave proponents strong Christians who based their positions on the Bible? They were not thinking, "Oh, we just have to throw the parts of the Bible we don't like away" they were saying, "The Bible clearly upholds the dignity of every single person, and it is not right to enslave a people based on their race and for the duration of their entire life."
Hawk: So you're saying that our interpretation of the Bible has changed? Is that it?
Chris: Slavery was not and is not a "social ill." It is the most morally reprehensible thing someone can do to another besides take their life (although some would argue its worse). Your logic doesn't hold. Not only that, the Southerners were and still are very religious - perhaps moreso than the northern states. The Northerners were more progressive than the Southerners at that time but that is a different topic.
"God's number one mission for us is our spiritual life in Him and love for one another, not social engineering. The social ills will work themselves out when we turn to Him and love one another (compare the God honoring Protestants of the northern states with no slavery and anti-slavery laws and the more secular and business minded in the south)"
This is also a very valid point, God is not concerned with healing social ills first, He is concerned with healing people ills.
ifeelfine,
"The Bible should have passages that say slavery is morally bad if it is indeed one of the worst scourges in human history."
Depends on the circumstances. God is obviously against the abuse of another person, God obviously sees all as equal, and God obviously demands us to deny ourselves and live as Christ lives, "becoming slaves to all". Does God understand that slavery existed and still exists today? Yes. God gives us advice as to what we are to do if we are slaves or if we are in a position of authority. We can follow that or we can reject it.
Ifeelfine;
I am not an expert on this topic, but here are the things that I know.
There are different forms of slavery and you appear to recognize only one; the chattel variety that existed in the Southern states;
God adhorred chattel slavery as evidenced with the Egyptians in Exodus and with Rehoboam in 1 Kings 12
In those days, the household slaves (not the chattel type noted above) were treated very well, almost like family as evidenced in Luke7:2 and with Joseph found in Genesis. There were very specific humane laws that God instilled with a 7 year period for freedom or a chance for a slave to remain a slave as a bond servant on his volition. These slaves were often much better off than the common citizen of the day.
God did command that slaves be treated fairly and as humans unlike the cattle treatment many received in the southern states
God's number one mission for us is our spiritual life in Him and love for one another, not social engineering. The social ills will work themselves out when we turn to Him and love one another (compare the God honoring Protestants of the northern states with no slavery and anti-slavery laws and the more secular and business minded in the south)
Now two questions for you. Did the Marxist regimes and the Nazis treat their slaves as chattle slaves or were they treated with love and respect as members of the household who were free after 7 years if they wanted their freedom? Would a Nazi or Marxist have riden off to Jesus and asked Jesus to heal the sick slave because he, the master, highly valued his slaves?
Hawk - read the passage in Luke I mentioned below.
Chris: By citing a verse that says slavery is moral good makes no sense. The Bible should have passages that say slavery is morally bad if it is indeed one of the worst scourges in human history. I want you to cite one verse that says the computer you are typing on is morally ok to have . . . see how silly that is?
But here are some verses that endorse slavery:
- Colossians 3:22
- Titus 2:9
- Leviticus 25:44
- Luke 7:2
- Exodus 21:32
Hitler was a Roman Catholic who never renounced his faith, and was never excommunicated. Hitler was a Roman Catholic who never renounced his faith, and was never excommunicated.Hitler was a Roman Catholic who never renounced his faith, and was never excommunicated.Hitler was a Roman Catholic who never renounced his faith, and was never excommunicated.Hitler was a Roman Catholic who never renounced his faith, and was never excommunicated.Hitler was a Roman Catholic who never renounced his faith, and was never excommunicated.Hitler was a Roman Catholic who never renounced his faith, and was never excommunicated.Hitler was a Roman Catholic who never renounced his faith, and was never excommunicated.
Hawk,
Excellent points.
ifeelfine,
What I am going to need, is a single verse that says that slavery is morally good. Do it, and your point is won. I can quote a number of verses that say that there is no slave in God's eyes, that if a slave is able to secure freedom that they should, and that no matter what position a person is in, whether slave or master, they should strive to be more like Christ. Christ did not own slaves, and if He had, they would have been happy to have been His slaves (I know I am).
This point is irrelevant to the discussion however, as we are talking about eugenics and genocide. It is a separate issue.
Ifeelfine and Chris,
Not sure if you have a Bible dictionary, I have the Holman, and it addresses the issue of slavery rather clearly. 'One can conclude that Jesus and the apostles set forth principles of human dignity and equality which eventually led to abolition.' Just had to overcome the 'science' that blacks or other races were not equals. It may also be wise to clarify the various forms of slavery.
Chris: I can cite lots of verses in both the OT and NT that seem pretty friendly to slavery.
ifeelfine,
"What position? You said the Bible doesn't support slavery now only then and didn't say why. You're basically trying to have it both ways - some moral laws apply to back then and other apply for all time. It makes no sense. So you're being a bit of a hypocrite by saying that I arbitrarily throw away parts of the Bible."
No, you said that the Bible only supported it then, I only said that your use of slavery was not a fair example for this conversation. My position is and always has been that the Bible has never supported slavery, that it has allowed it, but only as a concession to man's fallen nature. I have supported my position enough times that you should know my position. You clearly are only hearing what you want to hear. You have completely taken what I said out of context.
Chris333 said: I have spent a fair amount of time already debating the issue of slavery with you on another thread, and you did not defeat my position. Nonetheless, I cannot see how you can say that Christianity is true and good while throwing parts of the Bible away arbitrarly based upon what fits you.
What position? You said the Bible doesn't support slavery now only then and didn't say why. You're basically trying to have it both ways - some moral laws apply to back then and other apply for all time. It makes no sense. So you're being a bit of a hypocrite by saying that I arbitrarily throw away parts of the Bible.
ifeelfine,
"evolution is about biology, not philosophy. You can't logically take that and start applying it to other things. "Let's build computers using Darwinian philosophy" - it just doesn't work."
I am not saying evolution is good or bad, or that it must lead to genocide. I am saying it can, and that it can logically be used to justify such acts. This has been addressed enough, and if you want to challenge it then go back and read what I wrote about it.
"I think not. I know you're trying to make evolution seem like a bad thing vis a vis a connection to Hitler "
No, I have adamantly stated that I am not trying to make a value judgement on evolution. Honestly if evolution is true and genetic evolution is the goal, then perhaps Hitler was doing the right thing, though his assumption that the Jews were inferior may have been wrong.
"but you can't do that anymore than you can call the Bible evil because of its connection to endorsement of slavery."
I have spent a fair amount of time already debating the issue of slavery with you on another thread, and you did not defeat my position. Nonetheless, I cannot see how you can say that Christianity is true and good while throwing parts of the Bible away arbitrarly based upon what fits you.
Ifeelfine;
Both the Bible and evolution have become foundations of different worldviews. Both have been misused through history; even Darwin misused his theory when he applied craniology to women and brain comparisons between whites and blacks. His bulldog, Huxley, likewise fostering white superiority under the guise of science. Darwin's evolutionist colleague and cousin extolled eugenics and social Darwinism under the banner of 'science" to tragic ends.
The problem with using evolution as a worldview foundation is that it supports atheisitic worldviews such as marxism and nazism and much more human tragedy has been experienced by these worldviews without a higher authority providing absolute morals and laws; there is little to no restraint upon those in power who wield the sword.
The real questions put forth by "Expelled" is why is Darwinism defended so vehemently that careers are lost because of logical and reasonable questioning? Why is another legitimate theory shunned with outlandish attempts to discredit it? Is it for science or preservation of worldviews? I believe it is critical for those concerned that their worldviews be preserved at all expense.
Does the theory of evolution kill? Of course not. Can evolution be used to justify ignoring God's laws and open the floodgates of human tragedy? Nazism and Marxist regimes have shown us that. These two evolution based worldviews have shed more blood in the last century than has been shed by all mankind prior to that.
Can Christian organizations stray from the Bible and cause harm? Yes, but not to the same degree; the instances appear very restrained compared to nazism and marxism.
Chris: On the surface you are wrong about Hitler using Darwin's philosophy because there is no such thing. Same for you schumacr, evolution is about biology, not philosophy. You can't logically take that and start applying it to other things. "Let's build computers using Darwinian philosophy" - it just doesn't work.
But I'll humor you, if we take your point to its logical conclusion then, the Bible can and was used to justify slavery. Does that mean that the Bible is a bad thing? I think not. I know you're trying to make evolution seem like a bad thing vis a vis a connection to Hitler - but you can't do that anymore than you can call the Bible evil because of its connection to endorsement of slavery.
Jerry,
Why on earth is the History Channel talking about evolutionary theory? I guess they are going to start teaching science in History classes, and math in English.
ifeelfine,
We have talked about slavery at length and this is not the post to discuss it further. That being said, the command to destroy a group of people was specifically a certain people, at a certain time, the Bible says this. I am not being arbitrary here, it would be arbitrary to say otherwise.
Also, my problem is not with evolution, I have stated this so many times that you ought to know it by now. My problem right now, on this post, is that Hitler did logically use Darwin and Nieztschean philosophy. I do not care if evolution is right or wrong here, I am talking about implications of these philosophies and how one man decided to use them.
Also, you said before that Hitler banned Darwin's books or something. Someone challenged this, but I say it is irrelevant. Why? Because Hilter wasn't using Darwin, or his books, he was using Darwin's ideas. This is clear from the quote from Mein Kampf that I posted.
bileven,,
“So if Hilter was a true Catholic as you suggest, why did he attack the Jews and NOT the Protestants?”
Oh, I don’t know, maybe all the 100’s of years of war and strife between the Catholics and protestants? Why re-start another inter-Christian war, when another religious group can be scapegoat.
So hitler wasn't german, he was austrian....and your point is what? Austria is essentially the same thing as german, heck both were part of the holly roman empire for 100's of years prior to either germany or austria even existing.
“As for wikipedia, that's an open source project, so aged information is subject to flaw”
Mkaaaay, but a recent study showed Wiki to be actually on par in terms of accuracy with that of the encyclopedia Britannica. Sorry, but such a resource on the Internet means it can be dynamically updated and as such what didn’t exist a week ago now does, ready for all to cite and use as a resource. As opposed to the old conventional way of writing and filling out new data for a book and then shipping it so the masses can cite and read it.
Umm, Jerry2, good thing you used the term "flat-earther". See, people for a long time thought the world was flat. Being held up by a large man/god or animal. The Bible was the only text prior the the 15th Century that made reference to the world being round. Even to the scoff of "science". That is until Colombus read the bible and inspired to use it's knowledge to prove the conventional wisdom wrong. Sorry, but they can spin any story they want, Science has NEVER disproven a fact in the Bible, but trying to disprove they in fact, prove facts in the bible 100% accurate. Such as the crossing of Pharoah and his death.
You wist to believe your a cosmic accident, fine... Go for it... Live, die, then fertilize, me, I was made for a reason. I have a job to do and a place I belong. I was purposely done and completely chosen.
Ifeelfine72, your right, most of the comment are directed at you. As for wikipedia, that's an open source project, so aged information is subject to flaw. As for the upbringing, why not open a book. Try German History for one. My grandfather was born and raised in Luxembourg. And he has confirmed what they teach in History class, Hilter wasn't a German, and He was raised by his mother, in Austria, who was Jewish until the day she died.
His religious connection to Catholic started at the time when he was running for political office and used the Catholic Church as a mean to obtain that office.
No offense, but I will take the word of someone who lived there during that time, and people who actually study their own history before I take the word of a foreigner. To Germany culture, we are all foreigners (except those that live it).
Here is something to really put a curl in your eye brow.... The Catholics number one conflict is with the Protestants, NOT the Jews. So if Hilter was a true Catholic as you suggest, why did he attack the Jews and NOT the Protestants? Normally you drive off your enemy, not your ally.
<<< Quote>>>>"Regarding slavery, the Bible does not endorce or condon slavery"
Then why did thousands of American slave owners use the Bible to justify slavery? <<<<End Quote>>>
If I drink a fifth of Jack Daniels and kill someone while driving intoxicated does that mean Jack Daniels promotes murder?
The fact that someone who said they believed something justified their position with the Bible does not make it factual. Which just goes to point out the #1 problem with many arguments regarding biblical teachings. People always try and use the "but they" issue. Simple fact made plain and simple, show me ANYWHERE in scripture where is says ANYTHING about being a Master of Slaves as good. I dare you!
No body can, thing is, most people do not even look at the Bible let alone spend any time reading it. Suprised they would be if they even read through Psalms and figured out most of the sayings they have been using for years are right there.
Last points I’ll make and then I’ll be done with this thread. If it walks like a duck, speaks like a duck, looks like a duck, then it’s likely a duck. Anyone who is trying to say Hitler was a Christian and was not a disciple of Darwin and Nietzsche, I respectfully ask that you consider the following:
Christianity:
- the meek inherit the earth
- blessed are the peacemakers and merciful
- the weak humble the strong
- elders are honored
- the foolish shame the supposedly wise
- all (slaves, free, every gender/race) are all the same and one in Christ Jesus
Darwin/Nietzsche:
- the survival of the fittest inherit the earth
- blessed are the aggressive and ruthless
- the strong dispose of the weak
- elders are euthanized
- the intellectually proud and science trump religion
- certain races are inferior to others and should be naturally removed
Which characteristics did Hitler and the Nazis exhibit?
Over and out.
"Regarding slavery, the Bible does not endorce or condon slavery"
Then why did thousands of American slave owners use the Bible to justify slavery?
The flat-earthers here need to watch this TV program on the History Channel:
The new series EVOLVE traces the history of the key innovations that have driven nature's evolutionary arms race from the dawn of life to today, from the anatomical (eyes, jaws, and body armor) to the behavioral (movement, communication, and sex). This 13-part series will deftly blend spectacular live-action natural history sequences, CGI, epic docudrama, and experimental science to illustrate our and our fellow species' eternal struggle for survival on earth.
PREMIERE: Tuesday, June 17 at 10pm/2am ET/PT
LENGTH: 2 hours
REPEATS: Sunday, June 22 at 11pm/3am ET/PT
PRODUCED BY: Optomen Productions, Inc.
See this for more information: http://tinyurl.com/3usop2
Christians are constantly trying to suppress and/or dumb down science education in public schools. Let's see if the Christians can suppress the teaching of evolution on the History Channel.
Give it up creationists. Everyone laughs at your ignorance and your fear of reality.
bileven: I'm pretty certain that you were directing your comments towards me and I don't even know where to begin. Please cite your source that states he was not raised Catholic. Just go to wikipaedia and search for hitler and you'll see. Also, I'm sure you offended an entire denomination of Christians by suggesting they are not Christians. Have you ever been to a Catholic church? I was raised Catholic and am now protestant but some of the best Christians I ever met were Catholic. Third, don't ever call it Darwinism, it's evolution - you look like an ignorant hick when you call it Darwinism. And the Bible does seem to endorse slavery on the surface, there aren't any scriptures that say slavery is sinful and many seem to endorse it.
One last thing, moral integrity is what is was at the beginning of time to today. Only thing that has changed is our excuses. Lies, cheating, betrayal, murder, envy.... all immoral, all addressed in the 10 Commandments, but the problems, the Jews gave it the word "Law", they were not so much laws but meant to be guidance. If you do those things (in the Commandments) your heart will be more pure, less anguish. The essence of the Bible is not about people, places, time. Never has been, never will be. It's about the HEART! The heart of you, me, God and of God's people. The events are to show us what errors others made and the concequences that result. Jesus came to reach the heart. Not of the Jews, but of ALL! No racism there, doesn't matter what color, creed, your past or your family line. What God has made clean, let NO MAN call unclean.
Regarding slavery, the Bible does not endorce or condon slavery, in fact, if you read. The teachings of Jesus make it clear that Masters will not have the best of rewards, while those thrust in slavery will have far better. Yet, we have a free will, so we are not "Slaves" to God, but we can make ourselves "slaves" to sin. Maybe you should spend some time in the word before you feel the need to misquote or color outside the lines with your statments and/or arguments.
First off, let's dispell some misinformation. Adolf Hilter was not raised Catholic, his mother raised him in Austria, in a Jewish household (which is why he knew their weaknesses and strengths). Hilter USED the Christian churches because of the conflict between Jews and Christians over the acceptance of Jesus as the Savior.
The killing in the OT, if you read, was civilizations that commonly took aggresion against the Jews. Only exception is the "re-claiming" of the land after Joseph's family left for Eygpt and eventually where made slaves. Fine examples of how God handles things would be Jericho. Now one sword forged on, God tore down the walls and the people scattered. But the price of killing has a price. David was not allowed to build the temple because there was blood on his hands, yet He was loved by God. This in no way compares to HIlters leading lambs in chains to a slaughter. The horrors and torments the Jews were put through can NEVER be found in the Bible. Hilter's "Superior Race" was the hallmark of his existance, it is was drove the Germans across Europe and south into Africa. If you read the biographies on Hilter, written from first hand accounts, you would find this information and cross reference to verify it all.
As for the mention of "Catholic" doctrine, I have only this to mention. Anyone that tries to argue Christian fundamentals using "man designed" Catholic doctrine is going to be fighting a very difficult fight. Basically, Catholics doctrine does not mean it is Christian, an example is the use of "Saints". Where as Paul refers to the followers as Saints, there is no basis for establishing the title of Saints based on works. Another example, it is a basic fundamental belief that only God can forgive one's sins, yet Catholics feel the need to give priest the power to teach people if they do certain prayers a certain number of times, that they (the preist) can grant forgivness...
Just a side note, Charles Darwin's writings were so influencial that Marx asked him to pen a piece for his own book, the Communist Manifesto.
Sillist thing of all, about Darwinism, that the theory evolves faster than his so-called subjects.
One thought I always try to keep (from a historical quote) "If you truely believe there is no God and the world is like this, imagine how much worse it would be if there really wasn't God"
Chris: If slavery and the death of nations is only for a certain time period, why not other things in the Bible? What makes you the arbitor of what is for that time period and what is moral? Slavery is the biggest moral issue to ever face this nation and on the surface the Bible seems to endorse it.
Chris: I'm not defending atheist thought or Darwin per se but am definitely defending evolution and I certainly don't want lies told in the name of Christianity. I am not an atheist, I am a Christian and have made that clear. But that doesn't mean I belong to a club it means I belong to a faith and I love my faith as an adult. We have to be honest about it and some of us are not. Hitler's use of Christianity doesn't make it a bad thing, it makes it something that we have to defend against.
Evolution is much maligned on this site and its ridiculous - I don't know how one thing about evolution could dispell anyone's faith. If your faith is that weak that evolution could dispell it well then I guess you didn't have much to begin with (and I'm not specifically talking about you, when I use that word)
ifeelfine,
Actually, I think that my position on the OT annihaltions of nations would fit very well with my position on slavery, mainly that both were only for a certain time, and that neither was ideal but was 'necessary' yet undesirable. I see no real contradiction not to open another can of worms.
I am wondering why you are spending so much time defending Darwin and atheist philosophies though?
myTmuus,
A final word. I am not going to keep on wasting my time on this, I will reply and address your points one more time, unless you actually deal with the points I have raised which are pertinent to the discussion. If you can do this, then maybe we can continue discussing.
1) Show how Christianity (based on the New Testament, being that the NT is the book of Christianity and the source of our understanding of our faith) can logically lead to Nazi policy. (You do not have to show that it must, only that it can logically and not absurdly)
2) Show how my assertions about Darwin/Nietzsche's theories were wrong. Namely that animals competing and overcoming weaker animals cannot be used to justify killing another race or people deemed weaker, and how Nietzsche's claim that the one who asserts his will to power can set moral rules and law cannot be logically used to justify, well setting your own laws and deciding what is right or wrong (thus Hitler).
If you can deal with these two points directly, then I can continue a conversation, because this is my entire argument simplified. If not, then you are throwing a lot of red herrings.
myTmuus (missed these)
“Do I drop the point just to satisfy you or because you feel I am not entitled to know why you haven't demonstrated why you believe it?”
I was talking about the illogical use of Christianity to justify genocide, myTmuus, you have to prove how Christianity can be logically used to do so (quoting the Bible, what Christ said). If you cannot do this, then you cannot sustain your point. This is really not hard, answer it, or drop it, or continue on a worthless point. Pick but stop wasting time.
“his own words indicate his attachment to Christianity and his admiration for Martin Luther, in fact Martin Luther did many of the same things Hitler carried out.”
When Martin Luther founds a religion and calls it Lutheranism (not to be confused with Lutherans) then you will have a point, until then, this is irrelevant.
“It is relevant to bring up a comparison, you use comparisons, albeit your's are usually illogical.”
These are nothing more than words.
myTmuus (continued)
“So how are you able to demonstrate that Hitler's use of Darwinism is a logical outworking of the theory, and that the illogical outworking of Hitler's use of his Christian beliefs is illogical? Besides your rights or your claim of Freedom of Speech. I mean really, that doesn't satisfy a very pertinent question.”
BECAUSE myTmuus, I can separate worldviews from people, my brain can function in that way. Thus, Hitler’s application of Darwin/Nietzsche was logical, and his personage and what he did was not. Regarding how, I look at what Darwin/Nietzsche said, I look at how Hitler applied it, and I determine whether it fits their philosophies and can be used, then I look at Christianity and Hitler’s application and I do the same. You just keep saying this, you have not shown me how Darwin/Nietzsche cannot be used this way, and you have not shown me how Christianity can (logically).
“Can you actually know someone's motivations and measure the intent those motivations and demonstrate how logical or illogical they are?”
We are not talking about motivations, we are talking about what Hitler did, what he said, and what Darwin, Nieztsche and Christ said. Motivations and intentions are irrelevant. What if Hitler intended to create a world full of pink bunnies when he had finished killing everyone? IT WOULDN’T MATTER.
“My question was not a red herring. It is relevant to the discussion to ask, as I did, "Do you believe that the theory of Evolution leads to atheism, atheism leads to eugenics, and eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany?” If you don't believe a theory can logically lead to it's worst case scenario, then it is following LOGIC. It's been your claim ALL along that Hitler used Darwin's and atheisms theories LOGICALLY, eventhough you admitted it is not a logical conclusion that a theory leads to act.”
Real slow now, you asked me if the theory of evolution leads to atheism (no I do not believe this, I largely accept the theory of evolution and I am theist), atheism does not have to lead to eugenics neither does Nietzsche but it can and it can logically so. You asked me if it did (necessarily) I am not talking about necessity, I am talking about logical possibility. Christianity cannot, it is impossible, unless love your neighbor as yourself and condemning violence leads to genocide, then Christianity cannot support it. Darwin doesn’t say it is good or bad, but his theory allowed Hitler to do it (see below in my other arguments), Nietzsche promoted the assertion of will to power. Address these points or give up, but I am not playing these long games where you go on about irrelevant topics and randomly call me illogical.
myTmuus (part 1)
“Is Christianity really a THEORY? I'd have to disagree with you based on evidence and what MANY Christians CLAIM. I don't believe that Christians view their religion, relationship with Jesus or their belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God(all claims they make and regularly debate and defend) If you are willing to agree that Christianity is merely a THEORY than I will admit I am contradicting myself.”
Actually I misquoted you, you said philosophy or theory. Nonetheless, how can you leave religion out, and say, “Oh well if a religion’s precepts are misused then it doesn’t matter.” This is getting ridiculous. In any case, if we accept that Christianity is (from a secular point of view) a “religious theory” which posits a certain answer for the design and reason of the universe, then yes it would be “theory” as opposed to a “religious law” which everyone has to accept. I think you are trying to say that, “Hey, religion can be whatever you say it is” but this is not true, Hitler’s saying Christianity says something, does not equal it. How can Darwinian/Nietzschean philosophy be exempt from this? You have some explaining.
“They have no rules, but they are ALLOWING of what Hitler did? How?"
My apologies, I go too fast sometimes. By allowing I think it should be blatantly obvious in Nietzsche’s case, as he calls for some kind of superior man to exert his will to power and subjugate others. In Darwinian theory (though possibly not modern evolutionary theory) and especially at the time of Hitler, the idea was that animals evolved by the strongest and fittest rising while others who are weaker and cannot compete die and stop “tainting” the gene pool, thus evolution can progress. As my quote of Mein Kampf shows, this is exactly what Hitler applied. I am not saying here that Darwin “promotes” mass murder or eugenics, rather I am saying that his theory allows it, you have have not shown otherwise.
myTmuus (part 2)
“You are to blame for any measurable harm, because you have incited them to do something and are adding an enticement with "it's the best thing in life." Can you demonstrate that atheism or Darwinism allows your question? Does Darwin or any atheistic theories demand kill and hurt people because it's the best thing in life?”
Your position was the opposite before, it seems you are picking and choosing when you want something to be your side. Nonetheless, I will answer. First, yes I would be partly, if not majorly to blame. And while atheistic theories do not demand that a person kills another, it also does not demand they do not either, and with Nietzsche (an atheist theory) plus Darwin, the idea that life, especially life you deem weaker, has inherent value is just lacking. (Please show an atheistic theory which shows how life has inherent value if you deny this)
“Atheism and Darwinism don't make those claims.”
Atheism’s only claim is that “God does not exist” and thus it is completely up to the individual if he wants to accept a Nietzschean philosophy, a Marxist philosophy, or a Ted Bundy philosophy, and all of these philosophies are neither good nor bad, they are just different ways of spending your time on earth. Darwin was very concerned with proving Christianity wrong and he said so. Anti-religious claims are claims about religion.
“Darwin based his theory on what observances he and previous scientists had found in NATURE.”
Great, and Hitler used that science to justify what he did, can you not see the link?
“It can demonstrated thoughout history in events beginning in the First Century until the present-
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism
I realize DENIERS claim that it is not a Christian Principle to carry out the evil, but when you read the propaganda, the apologetics, and all the revisions, it is ignorant to keep denying the TRUTH.”
That was low myTmuus, you did not provide one quote from the New Testament and then you show the detractors. You did the exact same thing I did with Hitler, only you used illogical detractors and not logical applications.
ifeelfine72:
<<schumacr - The inconvenient truth for this article is that Hitler actually banned Darwin's books. As as if that wasn't enough, he used Christianity to promote his ideas. It is intellectually dishonest of us to try to rewrite history because we don't like what happened>>
I must disagree with you here. Go back and look at the banned list of books and ask yourself what the actual term used (‘primitive Darwinism) means. Then ask yourself how Christianity and the Bible promotes eugenics, euthanasia, and racism, and then go back and see if you can find those themes running through Darwin’s and Nietzsche’s writings. Then ask yourself what fruit Hitler and Nazism bore. Connecting those dots isn’t that hard.
To address another topic in this thread – “Atheist” means “No God” (a: ‘no’, theist: ‘god’) If you want to hold to the belief that God may exist but you’re not sure, call yourself an agnostic then.
Seedplanter: Hitler didn't despise Christianity. He despised some traditional aspects of it but he was very reverent of Christ. He was raised Roman Catholic but seemed to embrace protestantism later in life. Hitler did use Christianity much the way politicians still use it today (to win over the people and win elections). I'm not saying he actually was or wasn't a Christian but he definitely claimed Christ.
You're right that he did use Christianity to quell the people because he feared the Christians politically but he also used Christianity to promote his ideas. He thought Christ was an anti-semite and hated the Jews as much as he did.
"Athiests deny the existence of a God..."
Steve,
While it is unfair to presume to speak for anyone else pertaining to their beliefs, this did seem to be the normal definition of atheism for years. Of course there are differring degrees and ascertions of atheists today just as there are in Christian circles. Ironically there are professing Christians who are in fact naturalists and practical atheists.
"Hitler...used Christianity to promote his ideas."
Correction: Hitler used Christianity to gain acceptance from the Christian community because he knew that he would not have the support necessary if he immediately publically confronted them with what he really thought about Christianity. Hitler in fact despised Christianity.
ifeelfine, you rather enjoy putting your spin on things. You say that you don't lie, well maybe you are just uninformed then.
Hitler's hatred of the Jews stemmed from his hatred of Marxism [It was one of the most frightful instruments of terror against the security and independence of the national economy, the solidity of the state, and personal freedom.]
. He discovered that Jews were the leaders of the marxist [Social Democracy] movement in Germany, per Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch II
"As I delved more deeply into the teachings of Marxism and thus in tranquil clarity submitted the deeds of the Jewish people to contemplation, Fate itself gave me its answer.
The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.
If, with the help of his Marxist creed, the Jew is victorious over the other peoples of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity and this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men."
steve,
while walking the dogs with my wife I was contemplating what you may have been saying about Wolfgang Smith. If you were meaning that his language was too inflammatory for a mixed audience then I do agree with you and I do not want to escalate vitriol and venom on this site.
Here is another view on presuppositions [untestable philosophic assumptions such as naturalism or supernaturalism used in science] and interpretation of the evidence:
A worldview is inescapable. Our worldview consists of our most basic assumptions (presuppositions) about reality. Our most foundational presuppositions (axioms) cannot be proved by something else (otherwise they would not be the most foundational), yet we hold them to be unquestionable. We use these assumptions (often without realizing it) to help us interpret what we observe in the world.... A person might argue that his or her worldview is accurate because it can explain the scientific evidence, but all worldviews can do that—that’s what they are for. External evidence can never prove or disprove a person’s worldview in an absolute sense. The reason is simple: evidence is always interpreted in light of that person’s worldview. The evidence doesn’t “speak for itself”; it’s the interpretation that is significant, and the interpretation is bound to be compatible with the worldview that produced it. This is inevitable.
God Bless
Hawk
schumacr - The inconvenient truth for this article is that Hitler actually banned Darwin's books. As as if that wasn't enough, he used Christianity to promote his ideas. It is intellectually dishonest of us to try to rewrite history because we don't like what happened. I don't like what happened but I don't lie about it. It is our duty as Christians to keep this kind of thing from happening and if our MO is to lie about it, then I guess we really haven't learned our lesson at all, have we?
steveh20:
<<I did ask if you believed it was right that the children where slaughtered, I'm not sure if you answered it.>>
If you’re pointing to the events described in 1 Samuel 15 where God commands Saul to kill the Amalekites including the children, then it’s important to understand the context of what’s going on. The Amalekites consistently attacked and murdered the Jews and were given around 400 years by God to stop their activities, which they did not. What God ordered was the removal of a cancer that consistently bred new cancer. Since God is omniscient, He could see what those children would end up doing later in life. In fact, this is proven true as Saul did not obey his orders and left many Amalekites living who proceeded to continue in their evil ways (father to child) and were a thorn in David’s side.
hautechick:
<<Then Martin Luther was NOT a true Christian by your standard? The FATHER of the REFORMATION, was not a TRUE Christian?>>
If you’re trying to make the link that Luther despised the Jews and Hitler despised the Jews, therefore either Hitler was a Christian like Luther or that Christianity and Nazism can be tied together, you’re wrong on both counts. Luther’s rage against the Jews (wrong it is/was for sure…) was because they continued to reject Christ; Hitler’s hatred of them was for other reasons entirely as has been proven by numerous historians.
If we step back for a minute, here are the points chris333, hawk, and other Christians out here have been trying to make: (1) ideas have consequences (2) the outworking of Nazism was a logical consequence of its philosophical influences. Nietzsche warned what would happen now that “God was dead” as he said. Darwin warned that if his biological methods were ever extrapolated out into sociological spheres, the end results would be horrible. When mankind believes and acts on lies, the consequences can be tragic. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." – Voltaire.
myTmuus
"I find it hard to ignore the Christian inspiration Hitler attributed and devolped into his actions and I am literally taking Hitler's own words- his own words indicate his attachment to Christianity"
... and your point is?? do you have the specific verses that hitler used to back up his actions to rid the world of jews and others?
steve;
what does being a critic of Darwinian evolution have to do with being accurate with his assessment? "Darwinian theory of evolution...is not in fact a scientific hypothesis corroborated by empirical facts, but a philosophic tenet..."
In other words, Darwinism is founded on the untestable philosophy of naturalism.
This is a very accurate statement for macroevolution.
<<Wonderful, I proved how it was illogical. You did not deny or disprove what I said. Please do so or drop this point.>>
I don't have to, it was you, remember? who claimed the bit about one point is logical and the other point is illogical. Do I drop the point just to satisfy you or because you feel I am not entitled to know why you haven't demonstrated why you believe it?
I said,
“FACT: He inspired others within his ranks to put the Nazi killing machine in place using propaganda, pogroms, demonization, and any means available.”
And you replied
<<I can’t see how this is relevant to our conversation, thus I am calling another red herring.>>
I find it hard to ignore the Christian inspiration Hitler attributed and devolped into his actions and I am literally taking Hitler's own words- his own words indicate his attachment to Christianity and his admiration for Martin Luther, in fact Martin Luther did many of the same things Hitler carried out. It is relevant to bring up a comparison, you use comparisons, albeit your's are usually illogical.
<<BUT THE POINT IS THAT I AM NOT SAYING HITLER USED LOGIC, I am saying that it is the logical outworking of those theories, which Hitler used. Can you deal with the point?>>
You said at 11:29 Saturday, and I quote
"Somebody else might interpret those differently, but I cannot see how they can possibly show how Darwin and Nietzsche cannot be logically used to justify such acts."
And on Saturday at 4:16 you said,
"You seem to be misunderstanding me. Hitler's use of Darwin/Nietzsche was logical and calculated, his use of Christianity was irrational and illogical. I said nothing about his actual stance, only the derivitive.
And on Saturday at 12:31 you said
"Why do I have the right to say it?because of Freedom of speech. Why is it proper that I say it? Because I am saying it about a directly comparable situation, the idea that somehow Christ would promote the murder of 6 million people (of any race) let alone his own people that he declared, "Father forgive them!" while on the cross, is shear ludicrousy, it defies reason, it is absurd. Therefore I and anyone else with half of a brain, can say "This is illogical use of Christian teaching."
So how are you able to demonstrate that Hitler's use of Darwinism is a logical outworking of the theory, and that the illogical outworking of Hitler's use of his Christian beliefs is illogical? Besides your rights or your claim of Freedom of Speech. I mean really, that doesn't satisfy a very pertinent question.
<<I agree about Hitler taking Luther's ideas. But Luther does not speak for Christianity and he was wrong. >>
I found nowhere in my posts that suggested I thought that Luther spoke for Christianity. I did read another poster that claimed Luther inspired Hitler, and she substantiated her claim with quotes etc. However, I did not make that claim.
I said
“Why do you keep denying the cause and intent? PROVE, if you can, that you understand Hitler's underlying motivations.”
To which you replied <<This is a red herring and false. I quoted Mein Kampf:>>
I quoted Mein Kampf too, it is your claim that Hitler used Athiesm and Darwinian theories logically to justify his acts, and that Hitler's use of Christianity to justify his acts was illogical. Can you actually know someone's motivations and measure the intent those motivations and demonstrate how logical or illogical they are? You think it's illogical to use Christianity and you think it's logical to use a theory- but how does one demonstrate one or the other honestly?
<<I agree about Hitler taking Luther's ideas. But Luther does not speak for Christianity and he was wrong. >>
I found nowhere in my posts that suggested that Luther spoke for Christianity. I did read another poster claim Luther inspired Hitler, and she substantiated her claim with quotes etc. However, I did not make that claim.
<<This is a red herring and false. I quoted Mein Kampf:>>
I quoted Mein Kampf too, It is your claim that Hitler used Athiesm and Darwinian theories logically, and that Hitler's use of Christianity was illogical. Can you actually know someone's motivations and measure the intent those motivations and demonstrate how logical or illogical they are? You think it's illogical to use Christianity and you think it's logical to use a theory- but how does one demonstrate one or the other honestly?
<<Wonderful, I proved how it was illogical. You did not deny or disprove what I said. Please do so or drop this point.>>
I don't have to you claimed the bit about one point is logical and the other point is illogical. Do I drop the point just to satisfy you or because you feel I am not entitled to know why you haven't demonstrated why you believe it except?
<<I can’t see how this is relevant to our conversation, thus I am calling another red herring.>>
I find it hard to ignore the Christian inspiration Hitler attributed and devolped into his actions and I am literally taking Hitler's own words- his own words indicate his attachment to Christianity and his admiration for Martin Luther, in fact Martin Luther did many of the same things Hitler carried out. It is relevant to bring up a comparison, you use comparisons, albeit your comparisons are usually illogical. Case in point your Sesame Street comparison.
No they don't, what they do is claim that it is impossible to claim that God / Gods do not totally exist (Allah, Thor, Jehovah ...fill in any name you wish to... )
My bad, I should have better stated atheism either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism and is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism. Sorry deny was the wrong choice.
<<NO, I do not believe that and it is not related to this discussion (another red herring). Rather I believe that Hitler logically used Darwinian Theory and Nietzsche’s philosophy to do what he did. Somebody else might interpret those differently, but I cannot see how they can possibly show how Darwin and Nietzsche cannot be logically used to justify such acts.>>
My question was not a red herring. It is relevant to the discussion to ask, as I did, "Do you believe that the theory of Evolution leads to atheism, atheism leads to eugenics, and eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany?” If you don't believe a theory can logically lead to it's worst case scenario, then it is following LOGIC. It's been your claim ALL along that Hitler used Darwin's and atheisms theories LOGICALLY, eventhough you admitted it is not a logical conclusion that a theory leads to act.
Before you conclude I am contradictory, I reiterate, I DO NOT believe Christianity is a theory. I believe, based on the testimony of MANY Christians, (some on this board) CHRISTIANTY to MOST Christians is a way of life. It is a close personal relationship with God, and Jesus Christ. It is something they claim they can prove with personal experience. Hitler did claim to be a Christian. He claimed in Mein Kampf that he was carrying out his masterplan to it's final solution based on Christian understanding and directions found in the Bible. Martin Luther's personal testimony, historical accounts of his words, actions and deeds fed Hitler's thoughts and fueled his actions. Can you deny that?
"Athiests deny the existence of a God or Gods,"
No they don't, what they do is claim that it is impossible to claim that God / Gods do not totally exist (Allah, Thor, Jehovah ...fill in any name you wish to... ) but the evidence is really not in their favour, so it quite in line to act as if they don't exist until something comes along to redress the balance . I do hate it when people misinterpret words, I am in this case happy to put matters striaght.
Regards
Steve
You said "Darwin/Nietzsche have no such rules, and actually are allowing of what Hitler did."
Reread my quote and finish it, I actually quoted you and tacked on a question. The sentance was actually this,(you stated) "Darwin/Nietzsche have no such rules, and actually are allowing of what Hitler did. " (and here's my question to you) "They have no rules, but they are ALLOWING of what Hitler did? How?"
I quoted YOU! And then asked YOU a question. YOU claimed that Darwin and Nietzsche have no such rules and they are ALOWING of what Hitler did, so are you now denying YOU said that? I copied your quote, I went back through the thread, it APPEARS you said it, now will you just tell me HOW is Darwin and Nietzsche allowing of what Hitler did?
Finally, if I tell a group of children that the best thing in life is to kill and hurt people, and those children grow up and do it, then who is to blame? Can I say, “I didn’t hold a gun to their head, I am completely innocent”? If not, then your last point is not valid.
HOW is my last point NOT valid? You are confused. If you tell a group of children that the best thing in life is to kill and hurt people, they may or may not grow up to do it- You are to blame for any measurable harm, because you have incited them to do something and are adding an enticement with "it's the best thing in life." Can you demonstrate that atheism or Darwinism allows your question? Does Darwin or any atheistic theories demand kill and hurt people because it's the best thing in life?
If I may, religion has a history of drawing people in and creating a sense of community and in some cases the community has followed it's leader even unto death- i.e. Jim Jones. Atheism and Darwinism presents a theory and leaves it there, Christianity is a way of life for many Christians and they actively seek to recruit others by enticing them with a variety of perks. Christianity incites it's followers to say creeds, believe a "holy" text, obey rules, live like a church community, tithe, etc. and in the end you will achieve eternal life. Atheism and Darwinism don't make those claims.
Athiests deny the existence of a God or Gods, they deny religion and they do not practice spiritual or religious precepts. Darwin based his theory on what observances he and previous scientists had found in NATURE.
And for many Christians, Christianity is a WAY OF LIFE.
you said <<If Christianity somewhere allows for the mass murder of a race, then please show me, if not then your point is invalid.>>
It can demonstrated thoughout history in events beginning in the First Century until the present-
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism
I realize DENIERS claim that it is not a Christian Principle to carry out the evil, but when you read the propaganda, the apologetics, and all the revisions, it is ignorant to keep denying the TRUTH.
<<You have contradicted yourself, you said a theory cannot be blamed for the misuse of its precepts, and now you have said that Christianity can. Which is it?
Is Christianity really a THEORY? I'd have to disagree with you based on evidence and what MANY Christians CLAIM. I don't believe that Christians view their religion, relationship with Jesus or their belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God(all claims they make and regularly debate and defend) If you are willing to agree that Christianity is merely a THEORY than I will admit I am contradicting myself.
wikipedia says,
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
Dive...dive...dive.... This is quite a loaded subject no isn't it?
There is a big difference between law and grace. They should never be confused. Law is based on fear. Grace is based on love. This is the difference in the lessons to be learned from the Old and New Testaments. Also, the Bible is clear that ALL of fallen man deserves eternel death. Life comes through the death of Christ. God also says in Romans 15:9 that he will have compassion on who he has compassion (ie. his choice as it is not required of Him based on the sinfullness of man).
What's my point? Fallen man is a walking example of the second law of thermal dynamics! Left to ourselves we destroy ourselves without the grace of God. Hitler would have found some reason to kill people even if Darwin had never existed. Still, Darwin made it easier for Hitler to justify his behavior.
The purpose of the evolutionary theory was to disprove the need of God. At the Darwinian Centenial convention the grandson (or was it the great grandson) of Huxley said "because of evolution we have no need of God or a god". When you try to explain God away you are left with only the sinful heart of man. Under those conditions people like Hitler will thrive.
Hawk
It's well known that Smith is philosophically an opponent of Darwinian evolution so I'd take this quote with a large dose of salt.
Regards
Steve
http://tinyurl.com/4al5eq
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life" ('My New Order', Adolf Hitler, Proclamation of the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933)
Hi Chris333: I'm not trying to pick a fight but the issue of slavery is another one that you've made similar comments about. And yet some other issues you take a completely different take on.
Hawk49: re: legitmizing eugenics based on evolution. The same thing could be said about the Bible legitimizing slavery in the US. It shouldn't be a criticism of the Bible it is just something that happened.
DBryden;
I really don't believe that you have the Christian perspective of science correct. Wolfgang Smith brilliantly states a more correct perspective:
"...science is a doubled-edged sword. On the one hand there is scientific truth, a bona fide knowledge of a special kind; but that knowledge is accompanied in practice by a syndrome of philosophic assumptions which are generally mistaken for scientific truths. It became clear to me, moreover, in light of the metaphysical traditions, that these scientistic beliefs (as I call them) tend to be spurious, and deleterious to our spiritual well-being. I became convinced, in fact, that the spiritual and moral decline of modern civilization--our estrangement from spiritual reality--is due in no small measure to the scientistic world-view which has been foisted upon us in the name of science. I therefore made it my business to detect and expose the principal scientistic dogmas affecting contemporary civilization....As a major example I would mention the Darwinian theory of evolution, which (contrary to official belief) is not in fact a scientific hypothesis corroborated by empirical facts, but a philosophic tenet masquerading in scientific garb. As one molecular biologist has put it, Darwinism is ultimately "no more and no less than the great cosmogenetic myth of the twentieth century."
In other words, Darwinism is founded on the untestable philosophy of naturalism.
Chris;
from my studies I know that God is just and has provided opportunity for people and nations to repent and turn from disobedience to Him or be destroyed. He doesn't kill or order the killing on a whim. Here is one example of God's warning:
8 Before the men fell asleep, she went up on the roof 9 and said to them, “I know that the Lord has given you this land and that dread of you has fallen on us, and everyone who lives in the land is panicking because of you. 10 For we have heard how the Lord dried up the waters of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two Amorite kings you completely destroyed across the Jordan. 11 When we heard this, we lost heart, and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the Lord your God is God in heaven above and on earth below.
Josh 2:8-11 (HCSB)
God bless
Hawk
Chris
But the Israelites where only following orders, I never said they had any knowledge about the children they where going to kill, hence maybe the person in the school could be following Gods command . How would we know (unless we saw it froms Gods point of view) he was wrong?
Steve
hey ifeelfine,
What other parts would you be referring to? Also, keep in mind I did not deny those "parts" nor did I deny the implications, rather I explained them as best as I, a mere mortal, can.
God Bless and let me know!
steve,
Yes coming from my perspective this was "unpalatable" so you would be right on that. However, I am not the author of life, and I do not know what God's intents were in that. It is important also to keep in mind that only God has the right to take a person's life, as He was the one who gave life. If you cannot make life, then you do not have the right to take it away (Thus I am against the death penalty, generally speaking).
The only thing that we need to know is that from a human perspective, killing in such a manner is wrong, but based on the points I gave, it is not at all inconceivable that God had a very good reason for what He commanded and that it was indeed better for those children than the alternative. Also, the example you give is not exactly comparable, a person going into a school and shooting children does not know the futures of those children, cannot guarantee that they will go to heaven, and does not have authority over their lives.
God bless, and hope this cleared things up!
dmodin,
"But to place blame for the Holocaust on Darwin - isn't that wrong, too?"
Well, I didn't place the blame on Darwin, or on evolutionary theory, however it was the 'logical' application of Darwinian and Nietzschean principles that Hitler used. He may have been wrong, but it was very logical and nothing was inconsistent with Darwin/Nietzsche.
While there is some truth in what you said about Marie Curie, it is not exactly comparable. Darwin (while probably agnostic) was very strong against Christianity and I believe said so often. It is not so much that I am blaming Darwin, rather it is that I am saying that Darwin's theory could be used to justify such actions (I cannot see how it can be used to treat others equally and not kill, but it certainly doesn't have to lead to eugenics). Hawk said it well also.
Still, your points are good. God Bless!
dmodlin71
You seem to be confusing Darwin (the person) with Darwinism (the idea, philosophy). Darwin did not create the concept of eugenics nor social Darwinism, however his theory legitimized these concepts (some might say this is unintended consequences). His theory was applied to these areas by his contemporaries; his cousin Francis Galton and an associate Herbert Spencer. The Holocaust, eugenic treatment of the gypsies, mentally ill and deformed, forced sterilization are all consequences of the application of Darwinism in social affairs.
Throughout history humans have been abusing humans and up to the 20th century these acts were justified by other reasons. The Nazi eugenic experience was one application of the Darwinian concept.
The philosophy of naturalism (including Darwinian evolution) is the foundation for the humanistic worldviews, including Marxism, and the consequences of application of these worldviews has been rather devastating.
Flagged myself
Chris
Your 2 cents iare welcome!!
I understand the points you make. I do feel though that what you have written seems to me to be how you yourself reconcile this unpalatable act with how it makes you feel deep inside, could be totally wrong there? I can't answer the if there is a God maybe he knew something we did not approach apart from to say what if sombody walks into a school today,shooting kids dead, useing the same reason, how would we say they where wrong? Maybe once again, God knew something we did not?
dmodlin71- Really good point concerning Marie Curie.
Steve
"I agree about Hitler taking Luther's ideas. But Luther does not speak for Christianity and he was wrong."
And I agree with you, Chris333. Luther was wrong. But to place blame for the Holocaust on Darwin - isn't that wrong, too? Most of what Darwin learned and put down as theory was very rudimentary, and almost all aspects of anything "based" in Darwinism - evolution, eugenics, etc. - were put together by later theorists. In Darwin's day, people were still being taught that some forms of life metamorphosised out of inanimate objects - i.e., if you found maggots in your rice, those maggots magically "formed" out of rice grains. This was not argued by Christian theologists in the day, because nobody had bothered to prove it wrong. Darwin just happened to be on a trans-oceanic voyage and noticed things that hadn't been reported or noticed before - and ultimately came to some conclusions. He didn't force them on anybody - nor did he use his ideas to cause anyone harm.
Marie Curie discovered much of what we know about radioactivity, and her discoveries were used to build the first atom bomb, the first nuclear power plant, and many other things - such as radiation therapy for cancer. But is it right and truthful to place any blame on Marie Curie for the Chernobyl disaster? Or the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese from the atomic bomb? If she had known that the "pretty glowing" test-tubes that she carried around in her pocket were going to later kill her, and that her scientific research contributed to all that it did - she might have changed her mind on her choice of profession.
Likewise, it is unfair to say that Darwin - a man who was NOT trying to be a revolutionary - shares any blame in the Holocaust. Like most people who are born with an inquisitive, intelligent mind, he was just looking for the TRUTH - not JUSTIFICATION for future wrongdoings.
Chris333 stated: "3) It is important to keep in mind that God was speaking about a certain people, from a certain time, and in no way did God give the Jewish people, or any people, the right to kill children or others apart from those times."
Its funny that you feel this way only about those parts of the Bible you feel portray Christianity in a bad light but don't seem to feel that way about other aspects of Christianity.
.
There is, in Christianity today, an attempt to depict Science as a religion; which word I define as "doctrines without proof". Under cover of this falsehood, some Christians demand equal classroom time for the cosmology of Genesis (though, strangely, they do not ask for the creation stories of third-party religions to be taught also).
And here we see the same falsehood used to slander what is called "Darwinism". The very name is chosen to mislead!
Let me speak some truths here.
[1] Science is the process of explaining the evidence; and a scientist places his or her faith ONLY in the evidence. They do not place their faith in anybody's words, including Darwin. This is why the very term 'Darwinism' is a false description of evolutionary science.
[2] Science is not a philosophy. It has no concept of good or evil because they do not exist outside of the mind. When Science discovers a process called "survival of the fittest", that does NOT imply that anybody should implement a similar social process. Science can help you to predict the consequences of your actions, but it never tells you what to do.
Steve,
Hope you don't mind if I briefly put my 2 cents in on this. It is very much true that God commanded the destruction of an entire nation, children and all. However, this is not equivalent to an army general commanding the slaughter of children.
1)God (if true) is infinitely intelligent and could know something that we do not know, perhaps He knew that these children would grow to become evil and turn against God and lead Israel astray, the people from whom God had promised the Messiah to save all of mankind.
2) It can be safely said that all children belong to God, and thus, if we assume the children would have rebelled against God, they may have been spared a worse eternal fate.
3) It is important to keep in mind that God was speaking about a certain people, from a certain time, and in no way did God give the Jewish people, or any people, the right to kill children or others apart from those times.
Due to the fact that this is one real possibility for explanation and justification of such an event, it is not illogical to think of God as having done this and yet still just and good.
God bless,
Chris
Hello schumacr, thank you for your reply. I did ask if you believed it was right that the children where slaughtered, I'm not sure if you answered it. I will nail my colours to the mast and say that I don't think it is right in war for the victors side to slaughter the children (or prisoners for that matter), would you agree with my sentiments?
kind regards
Steve
Oh an myTmuus,
"There's nothing in your tortured use of the facts and illogic that confuses me- you can't support any of your claims."
Strong words, now try actually addressing what I wrote.
dmodlin,
I agree about Hitler taking Luther's ideas. But Luther does not speak for Christianity and he was wrong.
myTmuus,
“Why do you keep denying the cause and intent? PROVE, if you can, that you understand Hitler's underlying motivations.”
This is a red herring and false. I quoted Mein Kampf:
“If nature does not wish that weaker individutals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race (I assume the Germanic race) should inter-mingle with an inferior (I assume the Jewish race). Why? Because, in such a case her efforts, throughout hundreds and thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile."
“FACT, I have used Mein Kampf, his speeches and his quotes--direct hisorical proof that he claimed he was inspired by Christianity to carry out his acts against the Jews.”
Wonderful, I proved how it was illogical. You did not deny or disprove what I said. Please do so or drop this point.
“FACT: He inspired others within his ranks to put the Nazi killing machine in place using propaganda, pogroms, demonization, and any means available.”
I can’t see how this is relevant to our conversation, thus I am calling another red herring.
“FACT: Claiming theories or philosophies are responsible isn't evidence that their ideas cause measurable harm- otherwise saying societies have FORCED children to become murders, theives and rapists by allowing them to view TV, and play video games makes it the TRUTH…anyone reading it could take it literally and justifiably defend their anti-social behavior on it. Are you willing to accept that as FACT?”
Sure, but it does not prove your point or disprove mine. Suppose a kid watched Sesame Street and got the idea in his head that he should kill five hundred children. Sesame Street is clearly against this and the program in no way supports it. Thus this kid would be illogically using Sesame Street. Suppose he watches a violent Mafia movie and gets the idea. This is not exact, but it is more logical and we can understand why. That is my point, you have failed to address it.
“Where is my claim in my sentance that Hitler was a logical person? You're confused.”
BUT THE POINT IS THAT I AM NOT SAYING HITLER USED LOGIC, I am saying that it is the logical outworking of those theories, which Hitler used. Can you deal with the point?
“Your argument is just a fallacious appeal to consequences: meaning: the truth of something does not depend on the consequences of it being true; the truth of something depends on whether it is actually true or not. Nuclear weapons are terrible things, but that doesn’t mean that E does not equal M C squared.”
ABSOLUTELY, this is a red herring again, and is completely unrelated to what I said. E = MC squared does not say “the ubermensch should exert his will to power and control the masses by force is necessary, at which point he will be able to define what is right and wrong” Nietzsche did, nor does it say that species struggle and survival of the fittest brings forth a superior species/race, Darwin did.
myTmuus,
“Finally, will you answer this question honestly? Do you believe that the theory of Evolution leads to atheism, atheism leads to eugenics, and eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany?”
NO, I do not believe that and it is not related to this discussion (another red herring). Rather I believe that Hitler logically used Darwinian Theory and Nietzsche’s philosophy to do what he did. Somebody else might interpret those differently, but I cannot see how they can possibly show how Darwin and Nietzsche cannot be logically used to justify such acts.
“Hitler’s solution was the opposite of allowing nature to select. Hitler’s approach was to artificially remove groups of people he didn’t like, from the gene pool, in what was undeniably a sickening version of selective breeding, as practiced by farmers for around 10,000 years before Darwin. If Hitler learned of the opportunities of such selective breeding from anywhere, it was from farmers’ knowledge and experience that predated Darwin. Which means that Hitler’s final solution was, if anything, an example of intelligent design.”
Thank you for addressing the topic. This is only if you are assuming that Hitler is above nature though, most evolutionists think that humans are smart animals. Thus we are a part of nature, if we are a part of nature, then we are allowing nature to select, Hitler was trying, as he said, not to let man reverse the work of nature.
“You can attempt to scapegoat the philosohies of Darwin and Nietzsche all you want, but there is no evidentiary support in anything you have posted that will substantiate it.”
I quoted Mein Kampf and it is common knowledge what Nietzche’s theory was and how Hitler applied it. I have not scapegoated anything, though it seems you have.
You keep saying you've proven Christianity can't be blamed, and it can. Hitler said so himself his own testimony, his own writing and his own speeches prove it. HE condemns himself with that evidence just as Andrea Yates who killed her baby and blamed God. You keep saying THAT is not logical, that it makes no sense to you because Christianity doesn't support Hitler's actions. “Well the logic rests in the FACT of his own claims.”
You have contradicted yourself, you said a theory cannot be blamed for the misuse of its precepts, and now you have said that Christianity can. Which is it? If Christianity somewhere allows for the mass murder of a race, then please show me, if not then your point is invalid.
You said "Darwin/Nietzsche have no such rules, and actually are allowing of what Hitler did. "
Finally, if I tell a group of children that the best thing in life is to kill and hurt people, and those children grow up and do it, then who is to blame? Can I say, “I didn’t hold a gun to their head, I am completely innocent”? If not, then your last point is not valid.
Though it’s true Hitler played with Darwinian Philosophy, it is, in my view, quite unfair to draw parallels between two men who never met and lived in different countries and different times.
Darwin said in later years that the word "agnostic" probably came closest to his view and never left the Church entirely. His idea of "racial purity" focused on finding a good genetic mate; and it was others who later built his simpleidea into the foundation of eugenics. Surprisingly, Darwin often referred to God as "the ultimate lawgiver
Indeed, I think that there is much MORE of a connection between Hitler and one of the main leaders of the Reformation: Martin Luther. While it is generally not preached in any pulpit, every Lutheran theologian or minister has had to deal in some way or another with Luther's contempt for the Jews, and the fact that his blatant antisemitism is proclaimed quite dramatically in his own writings, particularly his book "On the Jews and their Lies" - the title of which says a lot.
The words inside say much more, however; especially such quotes as "...a base, wh**ng people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth..." and "these poisonous envenomed worms...should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time... the synagogue (is) an incorrigible wh*re and an evil sl*t." Ultimately, he exclaims that "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them....these poisonous envenomed worms should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time."
During the Kristallnacht and during many pro-Nazi marches and book burnings, Luther's antisemitic book was often paraded through the streets, high above the people, in a glass case.
I have struggled with Luther's words many times to find an "out" or an "explanation" for such hatred, but I can never find one. My dad tries to explain it away as "that was the way people were back then." Well, if people were like that back then, it's likely that they always existed, still exist, and always will.
I just don't feel it is helpful at all to use these distant associations - different agendas with totally differing objectives - as giving any real evidence to support a side. Apartheid in South Africa ended less than two decades ago, yet it was based in, and still was steeped in, a philosophy that the white Calvinists had “proved” in Scripture. Likewise, Luther quoted verse after verse from the Old Testament in his condemnation of the religion of the Jews. But we can't blame the scripture itself, nor the source from where it came, for bad translations - that is the human way, and we will always have evil among us, in every nation, creed, AND religion. We need to stop digging up the words of the long-dead, and focus on our own.
A little research will show the obvious fallacy of Hitler and/or Nazisim beong based on Christianity for those who are inclined to intellectual honesty.
The Nuremberg trials of leading Nazis conclusively proved that they attempted genocide against the Jews, resulting in the Holocaust, in which some six million Jews were killed. But one senior member of the US prosecution team, General William Donovan, compiled a huge amount of documentation that the Nazis also planned to systematically destroy Christianity.
Donovan’s documents—almost 150 bound volumes—were stored at Cornell University after his death in 1959, and are now being posted online at the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion. This ‘criminal conspiracy’ involved the very top Nazis, including Adolf Hitler and propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, as well as Hitler Youth leader and Nuremberg defendant Baldur von Schirach.
These documents show that the Nazis, right from the beginning, realized that the church would have to be neutralized because of its opposition to racism and aggressive wars of conquest. So they planned to infiltrate the churches from within; defame, arrest, assault or kill pastors; reindoctrinate the congregations; and suppress denominational schools and youth organizations.
Bible-believing, evangelical churches were in the forefront of opposition, as opposed to compromising churches.
http://www.lawandreligion.com/installments.shtml
Shu, You are correct about the obvious. Here are a few points of interest to support your postion and that of the CP news article.
Darwin had two colleagues; Herbert Spencer and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton. Eugenics is a philosophy first initiated by Sir Francis Galton in 1865, and which referring to the work of his relative, Charles Darwin, advocates "survival of the fittest" and the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.
The goals have generally been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society's resources, and lessen human suffering, but some proposed means of achieving these goals have focused on eliminating "undesirable" traits within dominant populations; the resulting discrimination and human rights violations, have included forced sterilization, castration, and at times, genocide of individuals perceived as inferior. Francis Galton believed:
•"The upper classes should be encouraged to have more children, whereas the lower classes should be induced, if possible, or compelled if necessary to have fewer."
•"The average intellectual standard of the Negro is some two grades below our own [whites]."
•"Jews were specialized for parasitical existence upon other nations."
•"Churches and civic groups who engaaged in charity for the poor were counterproductive to good breedin (This position comes from Herbert Spencer)
Herbert Spencer is the one who coined the term "survival of the fittest", Darwins used in his later works and the Nazis used in their campaign.
Nationalistic theories of Gustaf Kossinna about origins and racial superiority of Germanic peoples influenced many aspects of Nazi ideology and politics. To Rosenberg, only the Germanic people brought culture to the world, while Jews brought evil. He speculated that the people of Germany were survivors from Atlantis, and migrated to Germany. He saw Germans as a distinct race, not only in biological terms but in mental phenomena and in their 'will to live'. In this, he advocated race materialism, stating that only the fittest race (Aryans) should survive, a tenet that would later shape the Nazi policy on the Final Solution.
And Adolf Hitler had read some racial-hygiene tracts during his period of imprisonment in Landsberg Prison. The future leader considered that Germany could only become strong again if the state applied to German society the basic principles of racial hygiene and eugenics. Hitler believed the nation had become weak, corrupted by the infusion of degenerate elements into its bloodstream In his opinion, these had to be removed as quickly as possible. He also believed that the strong and the racially pure had to be encouraged to have more children, and the weak and the racially impure had to be neutralized by one means or another.
<<I’m not sure if it’s amusing or sad to watch some folks try and ignore the obvious ties between the Nazi’s and the teaching of Nietzsche/Darwin. Reminds me of what some professor of sociology said once, “When we lack the will to see things as they really are, there is nothing so mysterious as the obvious.”>>
Article 24 of Hitler's Nazi party programs calls for "Positive Christianity". Among the 25 points of the core values of this new Christianity, as explained by German philosopher Ernst Bergmann in 1934, is point number six which states: "The German religion is a religion of the people. It has nothing in common with free thoughts, atheist propaganda, and the breakdown of current religions." Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil: p153
AND
"Alas, it cannot be anything but the terrible wrath of God which permits anyone to sink into such abysmal, devilish, hellish, insane baseness, envy, and arrogance. If I were to avenge myself on the devil himself I should be unable to wish him such evil and misfortune as God's wrath inflicts on the Jews, compelling them to lie and to blaspheme so monstrously, in violation of their own conscience. Anyway, they have their reward for constantly giving God the lie."
AND
"In brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule-- if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us. . . . With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience."
It can be proven with FACT that Luther inspired HITLER. Hitler even quotes Luther in his PUBLIC SPEECHES, and so do other high ranking Nazi officials.
William Nichols, Professor of Religious Studies, recounts, "At his trial in Nuremberg after the Second World War, Julius Streicher, the notorious Nazi propagandist, editor of the scurrilous antisemitic weekly, Der Stürmer, argued that if he should be standing there arraigned on such charges, so should Martin Luther. Reading such passages, it is hard not to agree with him. Luther's proposals read like a program for the Nazis." (William Nichols, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1995), p. 271).
<<In the end, the connection is there like it or not. And no connection between Nazism and true Christianity can be found. Did Hitler use religious terminology? Sure. But switching labels on a bottle doesn’t change what’s inside. >>
Then Martin Luther was NOT a true Christian by your standard? The FATHER of the REFORMATION, was not a TRUE Christian? Will you indulge me while I demonstrate my point with HIS own quotes:
"Set fire to their synagogues and schools. Jewish houses should be razed and destroyed, and Jewish prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, curing, and blasphemy are taught, [should] be taken from them." Their rabbis [should] be forbidden to teach on pain of loss of life and limb."
AND
"Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them."
AND
"Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security."
steveh20:
<< Are you saying therefore that it is right that the sins of the fathers are visited on their children even to the third generation? >>
I assume you’re referring to remarks made in Exodus 20:5. First, Moses made it plain in Deuteronomy 24:16 that each person dies for their own wrongdoing: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." This is repeated in Ezekiel 18:20: “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18:20).
What the verse says is the iniquities of the fathers, not the judgment for the father’s iniquities, comes down on the kids. This is not surprising – an alcoholic father may wreak havoc on his family (e.g. no job, abuse, etc.). Further, note that Exodus 20:5 specifically calls out “those who hate Me”. The consequences of a father’s sin can be that the children end up hating God and practicing the very same sins their ancestors did. Again, not hard to see this in play in a lot of families.
What you’re dealing with here is the antecedent vs. consequent will of God. Just as a judge antecedently wishes that everyone before him be declared innocent, he knows that won’t happen, so his consequent will is that all wrong-doer’s be punished.
Finally, keep in mind that is was normal Jewish practice to warn their enemies of their impending attack so all women and children could flee ahead of time. Only those stubborn enough to remain suffered the attack.
I’m not sure if it’s amusing or sad to watch some folks try and ignore the obvious ties between the Nazi’s and the teaching of Nietzsche/Darwin. Reminds me of what some professor of sociology said once, “When we lack the will to see things as they really are, there is nothing so mysterious as the obvious.”
J. P. Stern, Professor of German at the University of London, co-authored a book on Nietzsche, and points out that Mussolini, who read Nietzsche extensively, received a copy of Nietzsche’s Collected Works as a present from Hitler on the Brenner Pass in 1938.( Bryan Magee, The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy (London: BBC Books, 1987, 250-51.) Another point worth noting is that, according to historian William Shirer, "Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and publicized his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man.” (William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, 100)
Yes, Nietzsche was not anti-Semitic like Hitler, but nonetheless, his influence of the death-of-God and the Superman thoughts was certainly picked up by Hitler. For instance, Nietzsche statements such as "lords of the earth," "herd instinct," and "the will to force" appear in Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
Finally, you have this from historian Paul Johnson: “Adolf Hitler . . . was a disciple of Friedrich Nietzsche. . . . Hitler hated Christianity with a passion which rivaled Lenin’s. Shortly after assuming power in 1933, he told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended ‘to stamp out Christianity root and branch.’ ‘One is either a Christian or a German -- you cannot be both,’ he added. . . . He said, ‘I want a powerful, masterly, cruel and fearless youth. . . . The freedom and dignity of the wild beast must shine from their eyes. . . .’”
In the end, the connection is there like it or not. And no connection between Nazism and true Christianity can be found. Did Hitler use religious terminology? Sure. But switching labels on a bottle doesn’t change what’s inside.
<<You seem to be misunderstanding me. Hitler's use of Darwin/Nietzsche was logical and calculated, his use of Christianity was irrational and illogical. I said nothing about his actual stance, only the derivitive. >>
But it was you who said "the idea that somehow Christ would promote the murder of 6 million people (of any race) let alone his own people that he declared, "Father forgive them!" while on the cross, is shear ludicrousy, it defies reason, it is absurd. Therefore I and anyone else with half of a brain, can say "This is illogical use of Christian teaching"!
AND
"Perhaps Darwin said, "Love everyone so evolution can progress" or Nietzche said, "The ubermensch must assert his WILL TO LOVE, yeah baby!" But if you cannot show it, I am going to have to assume you are either confused or have no evidence."
There's nothing in your tortured use of the facts and illogic that confuses me- you can't support any of your claims.
schumacr
Are you saying therefore that it is right that the sins of the fathers are visited on their children even to the third generation? Is it right that if parents do wrong (i.e the cultures you mention) then the children should be slaughtered for things they have not done?
Regards
Steve
P.s Collateral damage, what a lovely phase for killing non combatants, nice and clinical , just right for the evening news.
<<I gave a statement, but I am not talking about Hitler's personage, I am talking about his use of 3 separate theories, and how two are used logically, and one is not. This does not require proof, unless you doubt what the theories say, which you haven't suggested that doubt.>>
Why do you keep denying the cause and intent? PROVE, if you can, that you understand Hitler's underlying motivations.
FACT, I have used Mein Kampf, his speeches and his quotes--direct hisorical proof that he claimed he was inspired by Christianity to carry out his acts against the Jews.
FACT: He inspired others within his ranks to put the Nazi killing machine in place using propaganda, pogroms, demonization, and any means available.
FACT: Claiming theories or philosophies are responsible isn't evidence that their ideas cause measurable harm- otherwise saying societies have FORCED children to become murders, theives and rapists by allowing them to view TV, and play video games makes it the TRUTH.
By the same token, it can be comparable to point out that there is obvious sex, violence, murder and hatred within the pages of the Bible, anyone reading it could take it literally and justifiably defend their anti-social behavior on it. Are you willing to accept that as FACT?
READ my quote, again, I said <<"Do I need to remind you it's your argument that Hitler used logic to support his USE of Darwin's and Nietzsche's philosophies while using illogic to support his use of Christianity. ">>
your respose was...
<<You would be incorrect, I said that he logically used Darwin/Nietzsche not that he was a logical person. In other words, it was the logical outworking of Darwin/Nietzsche.>>
Where is my claim in my sentance that Hitler was a logical person? You're confused.
Your argument is just a fallacious appeal to consequences: meaning: the truth of something does not depend on the consequences of it being true; the truth of something depends on whether it is actually true or not. Nuclear weapons are terrible things, but that doesn’t mean that E does not equal M C squared.
Finally, will you answer this question honestly? Do you believe that the theory of Evolution leads to atheism, atheism leads to eugenics, and eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany?
<<I am sorry, you are going to have to show me how Darwin/Nietzche cannot be used to commit such genocide. Perhaps Darwin said, "Love everyone so evolution can progress" or Nietzche said, "The ubermensch must assert his WILL TO LOVE, yeah baby!" But if you cannot show it, I am going to have to assume you are either confused or have no evidence.>>
Hitler’s solution was the opposite of allowing nature to select. Hitler’s approach was to artificially remove groups of people he didn’t like, from the gene pool, in what was undeniably a sickening version of selective breeding, as practiced by farmers for around 10,000 years before Darwin. If Hitler learned of the opportunities of such selective breeding from anywhere, it was from farmers’ knowledge and experience that predated Darwin. Which means that Hitler’s final solution was, if anything, an example of intelligent design.
<<True, if the theory is illogically used. I proved that Christianity can't be blamed, because Christianity is that AGAPE Club. Darwin/Nietzsche have no such rules, and actually are allowing of what Hitler did. You can disagree, but that doesn't make your point right.>>
You can attempt to scapegoat the philosohies of Darwin and Nietzsche all you want, but there is no evidentiary support in anything you have posted that will substantiate it. You keep saying you've proven Christianity can't be blamed, and it can. Hitler said so himself his own testimony, his own writing and his own speeches prove it. HE condemns himself with that evidence just as Andrea Yates who killed her baby and blamed God. You keep saying THAT is not logical, that it makes no sense to you because Christianity doesn't support Hitler's actions. Well the logic rests in the FACT of his own claims.
You said "Darwin/Nietzsche have no such rules, and actually are allowing of what Hitler did. " They have no rules, but they are ALLOWING of what Hitler did? How? Did either of them hold the gun to Hitler's head and coerce him to carry out his calculated plan? Did they encourage him, cheer him on? Or did they just present their philosophies for anybody to read and judge like any author would? You can't just scapegoat a scientific theory or a philosophy because you disagree with it- no one has attempted to hold Einstein responsible for dropping the bomb even though his theory lead to it's invention.
agentorange:
<<Dude, if the books of the OT show that Yahweh ordered the massacre of the innocents of numerous peoples in and along the way to Canaan it doesn’t really matter how the philosophy is to be viewed and how its used for good or evil by man, in the end the god in the OT asked for it and it was done accordingly by men.>>
Who told you the Canaanites were “innocent”? There is a common misconception that the peoples like the Canaanites of Jericho, the Assyrians of Nineveh, or the Philistines were innocent, moral, and peace loving people, and that they didn’t deserve judgment. The fact is, they were anything but moral and most certainly did deserve judgment. Regarding the movement of Israel into the promised land, Deuteronomy 9:4-5 says, “Do not say in your heart when the Lord your God has driven them [the people in the land] out before you, ‘Because of my righteousness the Lord has brought me in to possess this land,’ but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is dispossessing them before you. It is not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your heart that you are going to possess their land, but it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God is driving them out before you, in order to confirm the oath which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
History has shown that the Canaanites of Jericho were a deeply evil culture – one that was extremely brutal and cruel, with them practicing incest, bestiality, cultic prostitution, and child sacrifice by throwing their own children into altars of fire. As another example, God judged the city of Nineveh who exhibited the same characteristics. Nineveh was comprised of Assyrians who were unbelievable in their barbarism (e.g. they used to make handbags out of their victim’s skins). When archaeologists uncovered Nineveh, the atrocities described in the found artifacts were so horrible and graphic that documentaries made about the discoveries had to be censored for TV. God had every right to judge their sin, which He did via other nation’s armies.
Now catapult the scenes of Jericho and Nineveh into our modern times and ask yourself – if those activities were broadcast around the world via CNN, you can bet there would be global military action against such a people - one that would likely result in destruction and death, and maybe even collateral damage (i.e. women, children).
So the question is: if we would act in such a way when faced with horrific atrocities, then why think that a perfect and just God cannot? I’m afraid that you’re simply mistaken in your characterization of God.
myTmuus (part 1),
"Do I need to remind you it's your argument that Hitler used logic to support his USE of Darwin's and Nietzsche's philosophies while using illogic to support his use of Christianity. "
You would be incorrect, I said that he logically used Darwin/Nietzsche not that he was a logical person. In other words, it was the logical outworking of Darwin/Nietzsche.
"Can you support that will hard evidence?"
I quoted Mein Kampf, go back and read it.
"It's not illogic to misuse the precepts of your rules."
Yes it is, it is not logically applying the precepts, it is a contradiction of the precepts, in logic theory, when a person does this, they have done something illogical.
"Hitler was a Christian, he believed he was carrying out God's will"
He did something God condemned, thus it was illogical.
"is the person who bears responsibility for any negative actions. But do you actually know Hitler's intent is based on either logic or illogic- you made the claim and you used a bad analogy and are telling me I'm not getting very far?"
You seem to be misunderstanding me. Hitler's use of Darwin/Nietzsche was logical and calculated, his use of Christianity was irrational and illogical. I said nothing about his actual stance, only the derivitive.
myTmuus (part 2)
"If your precepts can't be blamed for John Doe's potential murder rampage, athiesm and Darwinism can't be blamed. That's logic, not what your proposing."
True, if the theory is illogically used. I proved that Christianity can't be blamed, because Christianity is that AGAPE Club. Darwin/Nietzsche have no such rules, and actually are allowing of what Hitler did. You can disagree, but that doesn't make your point right.
"Where is your proof? I submitted speeches he made and quotes from his books, you gave NOTHING."
I gave a statement, but I am not talking about Hitler's personage, I am talking about his use of 3 separate theories, and how two are used logically, and one is not. This does not require proof, unless you doubt what the theories say, which you haven't suggested that doubt.
"Misuse of intent does not qualify as proof of logic or illogic"
I am sorry, you are going to have to show me how Darwin/Nietzche cannot be used to commit such genocide. Perhaps Darwin said, "Love everyone so evolution can progress" or Nietzche said, "The ubermensch must assert his WILL TO LOVE, yeah baby!" But if you cannot show it, I am going to have to assume you are either confused or have no evidence.
"That plea to emotionalism counts for nothing"
WHAT? Where was this so-called plea to emotion? That was a calculated logical answer. And it has direct implications for this conversation.
You must do two things in order to show your point myTmuus.
1) You must show how Christianity can be rationally used to justify the killing of millions based on race.
2) You must show how Darwin/Nietsche philosophy cannot be used rationally to do the same.
If you cannot do either of these, then my position prevails. Regardless of how crazy Hilter was.
<<I don't make the rules here myTmuus, I just call the obvious.>>
You've called nothing. You've presented no facts, just perceptions. Perceptions don't hold any weight in court.
"What evidence supports your theory, D. James Kennedy's or Ben Stein's? Have you read Mein Kampf?"
<<Did you read my post? Or are you willfully ignoring what I said?>>
Your post ignored my questions and instead you talk around them. I addressed each remark one right after the other- carefully. Have you read Mein Kampf? And where is your evidence?
"Minimizing his madness and blaming athiest philosophies is comparable..."
<<Give me a break, jee whiz. I said, "...to say the least" Besides that he fooled thousands upon thousands of people, guess what, not all of them were crazy.>>
So he fooled thousands and thousands of people, HOW? Did he use manipulation, propaganda, nationalism, presenting Germans as victims, who had every right to reclaim the Motherland by any means possible? FWIW I don't recall calling his followers crazy.
<<myTmuus, too bad we are Christians and we believe that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament, and His commands superscede Old Testament commands, thus "An eye for an eye" becomes, "Turn the other cheek". Also, the commands in the Old Testament were for a specific people and a specific time. Unless Hitler can somehow turn, "Destroy the Hittites at this time" to "Kill anyone you want anytime" then he would have a hard time making his case.>>
That plea to emotionalism counts for nothing. Again you prove my poin, what's stopping him from manipulating Darwin if he's clearly manipulating the Bible? You believe it's logical to manipulate Darwin or Nietzsche, but illogical to manipulate the Bible based on BELIEF- it's your word against mine, only my FACTS validate my statements, you just ignore them.
<<myTmuus, I do not have to read Hitler's writings to know that he illogically used Christian idea, because I know Christian idea, and it does not allow such killing.>>
You have to read them in order to use them to prove your point. No evidence, no FACT.
<<You are going to have to show me where Christ endorsed killing or killed someone to make your case, because as Christians we follow Christ. If you can do that, I will accept your case.>>
That's ironic, I never said Christ endorsed killing. But based on evidence, Hiltler defends his action with both Christianity and the Bible. The Grand Inquisitors murdered using the Bible as the basis for their actions- it's a fact. So manipulations are exactly what I am and have been claiming ALL along.
<<f not, you lose your point is not sustainable. >>
Really, since you have helped me prove my point, I want to know, did you really mean to do so or were you not paying attention?
<<Why do I have the right to say it?because of Freedom of speech. Why is it proper that I say it? Because I am saying it about a directly comparable situation, the idea that somehow Christ would promote the murder of 6 million people (of any race) let alone his own people that he declared, "Father forgive them!" while on the cross, is shear ludicrousy, it defies reason, it is absurd. Therefore I and anyone else with half of a brain, can say "This is illogical use of Christian teaching"!>>
I didn't question your "right" to claim anything, I'm questioning your authority to demonstrate or make such ridiculous claims regarding logic and illogic. On what grounds qualify you to determine any of that without any evidence. Where is your proof? I submitted speeches he made and quotes from his books, you gave NOTHING.
<<On the other hand, we saw exactly how logically he applied Nietzsche and Darwin, as he went strictly by what they said and the natural implications of their teachings. It is in complete agreement with their philosophies, thus it is "logical".>>
Misuse of intent does not qualify as proof of logic or illogic. It's like I said, the three woman who I used as examples based their actions against their children on the grounds that their religious leanings, they logically and precisely articulated. It doesn't make sense to me, they are murderers but it's their word against mine. It's an impasse. Works the same in Hitler's case.
<<You are not going to get very far.>>
Really. According to you?
Do I need to remind you it's your argument that Hitler used logic to support his USE of Darwin's and Nietzsche's philosophies while using illogic to support his use of Christianity.
Can you support that will hard evidence? I used his quotes from documented speeches and
books- his words speak for themselves, how do you propose to address that? So far all you have done is produce your personal presumptions and your personal assumptions. You neglect ALL facts, as does Stein and D. James Kennedy.
<<Here is an example that might help you. Say I decide to create a club (the agape love club) that says, "You must love everyone to be a member of this club, and it is against club rules to be violent" And then John Doe joins my club and starts saying, "Because of AGAPE LOVE CLUB teaching I am going to kill millions of people, wahahha!"
Guess what mytmuus, he illogically used the precepts of my club.>>
It's not illogic to misuse the precepts of your rules. You're misuse of comparison is rather irresponsible. Hitler was a Christian, he believed he was carrying out God's will, he logically and calculatedly carried out his plans as far as they went. You have just inadvertently proved my point with you comparison- you can not prove the illogic or logic of intentions- but you laid the ground rules in your "CLUB" analogy, and the person who abused the precepts of your intentions(like Hitler did with any philosophy he made attempts with,) is the person who bears responsibility for any negative actions. But do you actually know Hitler's intent is based on either logic or illogic- you made the claim and you used a bad analogy and are telling me I'm not getting very far? Please. You proved my point for me. If your precepts can't be blamed for John Doe's potential murder rampage, athiesm and Darwinism can't be blamed. That's logic, not what your proposing.
AND
fact =/= truth
Jerry2
ROMAN CATHOLOCISM =/= CHRISTIANITY
get it right. Christianity is not the enemy in any way.
you say we're lying? Maybe you should look in the mirror, cuz eventually lies coming out of your mouth puts black sludge in your mouth and it begins to spew out.
Also, this wikipedia article might be helpful for distinguishing theory from fact with regards to evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Chris,
here is Stephen Hawking describing a scientific theory (from A Brief History of Time):
"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory"
150 years of scientific research in hundreds of different fields has not found "even a single observation which disagrees with" the theory of evolution. Hawking is being very strict about the fact that no theory can ever be considered to be TRULY 100% FACT. Nonetheless, in plain language, 'fact' isn't an inappropriate description.
All the lying Christians do will never change the fact that Christianity has a long history of atrocities against non-Christians. The dishonest Christians can never change the fact that Christians murdered millions of Jews in the Holocaust. The Christians have blood on their hands, and all their lying about science will never remove that blood.
Christians can spread lies about evolution, and they can censor my comments, but they can't change the fact that there was anti-Semitism long before Darwin, and they can't change the fact that Christians were murdering Jews long before Darwin.
myTmuus,
You are not going to get very far.
You said, "On what grounds are you qualified to determine which USE is logical and which USE is illogical?"
Here is an example that might help you. Say I decide to create a club (the agape love club) that says, "You must love everyone to be a member of this club, and it is against club rules to be violent" And then John Doe joins my club and starts saying, "Because of AGAPE LOVE CLUB teaching I am going to kill millions of people, wahahha!"
Guess what mytmuus, he illogically used the precepts of my club. Why do I have the right to say it? Because of Freedom of speech. Why is it proper that I say it? Because I am saying it about a directly comparable situation, the idea that somehow Christ would promote the murder of 6 million people (of any race) let alone his own people that he declared, "Father forgive them!" while on the cross, is shear ludicrousy, it defies reason, it is absurd. Therefore I and anyone else with half of a brain, can say "This is illogical use of Christian teaching"!
On the other hand, we saw exactly how logically he applied Nietzsche and Darwin, as he went strictly by what they said and the natural implications of their teachings. It is in complete agreement with their philosophies, thus it is "logical".
I don't make the rules here myTmuus, I just call the obvious.
"What evidence supports your theory, D. James Kennedy's or Ben Stein's? Have you read Mein Kampf?"
Did you read my post? Or are you willfully ignoring what I said?
"Minimizing his madness and blaming athiest philosophies is comparable..."
Give me a break, jee whiz. I said, "...to say the least" Besides that he fooled thousands upon thousands of people, guess what, not all of them were crazy.
"Chris333 that the Bible is literally FILLED with God's justification for..."
myTmuus, too bad we are Christians and we believe that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament, and His commands superscede Old Testament commands, thus "An eye for an eye" becomes, "Turn the other cheek". Also, the commands in the Old Testament were for a specific people and a specific time. Unless Hitler can somehow turn, "Destroy the Hittites at this time" to "Kill anyone you want anytime" then he would have a hard time making his case.
myTmuus, I do not have to read Hitler's writings to know that he illogically used Christian idea, because I know Christian idea, and it does not allow such killing. You are going to have to show me where Christ endorsed killing or killed someone to make your case, because as Christians we follow Christ. If you can do that, I will accept your case. I will give you the whole New Testament. One single quote and I will say, "myTmuus, you are right, I am wrong"
If not, you lose your point is not sustainable.
Chris333 said,
<<Nazis illogically used Christianity and a "cultural" form of Christianity. They logically used Nietzsche and Darwinian theory.>>
On what grounds are you qualified to determine which USE is logical and which USE is illogical?
READ Hitler's own words, he was influenced by his Christian beliefs, he justifies his actions USING Christianity, and he says so many times.
"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only 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 against the Jewish poison."
"Hence today 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._ "
Other scholars and theologians agree
". . . centuries of Christian hostility to Jews prepared the way for the Holocaust. The Nazis are inconcievable apart from this Christian tradition. Hitler's pogrom, for all its distinctiveness, is the zenith of a long Christian heritage of teaching and practive against Jews." (Theologian Clark Williamson, Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis.)
"The isolation of Jews into ghetto camps, the wearing of the yellow spot, the burning of Jewish books, and finally the burning of the people--- Hitler learned it all from the Church. However, the Church burned Jewish women and children alive, while Hitler granted them a quicker death, choking them first with gas." "The clergymen don't tell you whom to kill; they just tell you whom to hate." (Dr. Dagobert Runes, Historian, child of a Holocaust victim.)
"The Holocaust was, of course, the bitter fruit of long centuries of Christian teaching about the Jewish people." (Dr. Franklin Littell, Temple University.)
"The decision taken, the Fuehrer made it known to those entrusted with the Final Solution that the killings should be done as humanely as possible. This was in line with his conviction that he was observing God's injunction to cleanse the world of vermin. Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy ("I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"), he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God - so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty." from Adolph Hitler, by John Toland
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust
New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.
Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.
Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.
<<... killing yes, but God never justified or commanded rape; please no lying on the message board >>
I said nothing about God commanding rape. What I did say was that the Bible is literally FILLED with God's justification for possessing, subduing and supplanting hundreds of thousands of established NATIONS by murdering, raping and leaving them desolate. I used the word NATION, not person, not woman- when one uses the term "raping the NATION" it is an allusion to GENOCIDE.
"Bible is literally FILLED with God's justification for possessing, subduing and supplanting hundreds of thousands of established nations by murdering, raping and leaving them desolate..."
... killing yes, but God never justified or commanded rape; please no lying on the message board
Truly, honestly, historically, Hitler used Nietzche and Darwin to logically work out what he did.
What evidence supports your theory, D. James Kennedy's or Ben Stein's? Have you read Mein Kampf?
<<Granted he was a bit crazy himself to say the least, he justified what he did with the two biggest atheist philosophies possibly ever to have existed (with Marx somewhere in there). >>
A bit CRAZY to say the least? He planned, and carried out the mass murder of 6 million Jews and several thousands of Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled and dissenters. Minimizing his madness and blaming athiest philosophies is comparable to the women who blame God for telling them to kill their own babies. You realize Chris333 that the Bible is literally FILLED with God's justification for possessing, subduing and supplanting hundreds of thousands of established nations by murdering, raping and leaving them desolate- a person who reads the Bible could very well attribute and justify their murderous actions as "Thus sayeth the Lord." Be very careful with your understanding of "use of philosophy is to blame."
<<There is not really much denying this, perhaps Hitler abused the message of Christianity, and played on peoples' fears, but he did not logically work it out from Christianity (thus abused).>>
You say "he did not logically work it out from Christianity," yet HIS own writing proves otherwise, I suggest you do some TRUE, REAL, HISTORIC investigating and then you can reenter this debate- everything you suggest is entirely based on a presumption.
Chris333 said...
<<It is not acceptable to say that Hitler was driven by his Christian understanding to do what he did, as Christ condemns all attacking of another person, especially one's perceived enemies.>>
Can you honestly tell me WHY it's not acceptible to speak the truth using Hitler's own words?
Or are you just bothered by the fact that Hitler would use his faith in the same manner The Grand Inquisitors of the Roman Catholic Church did in the 12th Century in their attempt to annihilate Jews, pagans, perceived enemies of the church and heretics?
BTW, in case you missed my point, I quoted Hitler directly from his own words found in Mein Kampf, so what's your point?
I reiterate, "The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine."
AND
"Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-and this against their own nation."
Those are two direct quote from Mein Kampf- Hitler in which he attributes and justifies his hatred of the Jews to Christianity. Sorry, but the facts speak for themselves.
“However, by contrast, those committing atrocities via a Darwinian philosophy were/are operating in total *harmony* with their ideology.”
Dude, if the books of the OT show that Yahweh ordered the massacre of the innocents of numerous peoples in and along the way to Canaan it doesn’t really matter how the philosophy is to be viewed and how its used for good or evil by man, in the end the god in the OT asked for it and it was done accordingly by men.
‘No God (as Darwin taught), then no real objective basis for morals, which leads to doing what is right in your own eyes or what the State dictates.’
Or just as bad is when a given ‘revealed word of god’ actively allows or worse still orders its followers to kill others out right 'holly' pffft.... Such a view that ‘killing a witch’ or ‘follower of another religion’ and countless others could be equally used to support horrid atrocities and have been. anytime dogma is invoved, darwinian or not, it's not a good thing.
Here’s the thing with TheHuron137 and others who try and point to atrocities that were/are committed by folks who externally profess they are “doing God’s will”: you miss the contradiction in the positions which spells out a key distinction between Christianity and Darwinism.
First, Augustine said that a philosophy should never be judged by its abuse. It should not be surprising if misguided or evil men distort a philosophy to carry out selfish or evil ends. For example, medicine can be wonderful, but in the wrong hands it can kill – so should we do away with medicine? Instead, what needs to be examined is the foundational teaching – what do the core doctrines spell out, prescribe, and forecast will happen if followed to the letter?
Yes, misguided individuals used religion to perpetrate evil acts, but those involved were just that – misguided – and acted contrary to the true teachings of Christ. This is why outcries against the Crusades, etc., are valid – they run contrary to the teachings of Jesus. However, by contrast, those committing atrocities via a Darwinian philosophy were/are operating in total *harmony* with their ideology. No God (as Darwin taught), then no real objective basis for morals, which leads to doing what is right in your own eyes or what the State dictates.
For a perfect example of this, read Jan Gross’ book entitled “Neighbors”. Gross takes you back to 1941 when the Nazis rolled into the town of Jedwabne where Poles and Jews had been peacefully living side by side for many years. Once the Germans arrived, the Poles asked the simple question “Is it permitted to kill the Jews?” For a good treatment of the material, you can also see George Will’s article here: http://www.racematters.org/injedwabnebygeorgewill.htm. Pay special attention to how he ends the article: “So, again: Why in Jedwabne did neighbors murder their neighbors? Because it was permitted. Because they could.”
chris 333,
please read the entry on the anti-defamation leagues website on the Expelled movie. Oh also in Mein Kampf.
The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10
Chris333
Who said that more were killed in Salem than by Hitler. Read what I said before answering. I was pointing the why people were killed, not how many. As you point out, fear was certainly a factor. But that changes nothing. The fear itself was rooted in their Christian faith and what they understood the Bible to say. What you believe Christiianity to mean does not change what they believed nor what they did. The simple fact is virtually anything, be it the Bible, the Koran, the science of evolution or Constiitution of the US can be twisted and perverted. Hitler does not invalidate the truth of evolution any more that the people of Salem invalidate your apparent Christian faith.
schumacr,
Ahh reason....
redward,
No, the "good folks" at Salem did not kill more than Hitler did, they didn't even come close, not even all of the witch trials throughout all of history. What is more, Christ condemns attacking another for the faith, it is literally forbidden. Certainly some people have gotten afraid and abused those teachings, but let us not go overboard. (You are not going from the numbers that were presented in that wonderful piece of fiction "The Davinci Code"? Please say no, for the sake of decency). In any case redward, you need to do some fact searching.
TheHuron,
"Well if a scholarly institution such as Coral Ridge Ministries agrees with the Expelled movie then I'm convinced. (sarcastic lol) Expelled the Movie is actually a form of Holocaust denial."
This is just a little bit disingenuous do you not think? I mean let us just look at what Hitler himself said, I think he knows his own position better than you (I am assuming...)
In Mein Kampf:
"If nature does not wish that weaker individutals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race (I assume the Germanic race) should inter-mingle with an inferior (I assume the Jewish race). Why? Because, in such a case her efforts, throughout hundreds and thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile."
And how is Expelled a form of Holocaust denial? I mean honestly, would Expelled say, "Oh Hitler used Darwinian theory to kill 6 million Jews" and then say, "By the way, the Holocaust never happened, and Hitler did not kill 6 million Jews"!? THIS IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE POSITION (on your part).
Alright everyone on the opposition side, it is time to step it up a notch, I found these allegations severly defficient and some cases were either outright lies or willful ignorance.
Interesting points/comments made by folks already; here are some from me. First, some of this is not difficult to grasp at all. Either mankind has intrinsic worth or not. When you kill God, someone will take His place, and that is usually a person or group of people who use power and force to impose their definition of right and wrong (and who matters and who doesn’t) on everyone else. This is one of the key reasons why those who founded America said our worth is granted by the Creator and not by the State.
Anyone who can’t see Darwinian doctrine scrawled across the Nazi and other like regimes has a worldview issue and not an intellectual one. And yes, Nietzsche influenced Hitler quite a bit (e.g. the superman, etc.), but read Nietzsche’s antichrist work and others and you’ll see Darwinian thought laced throughout it. Just look at what Victor Franko wrote (a concentration camp victim twice in his life) on where he believed Nazism originated: “The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment, or as the Nazi liked to say ‘of blood and soil’. I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were ultimately prepared not in some ministry of defense in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of Nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”
Did the Nazi’s apply a thin coat of religious veneer over them to help move their agenda forward? Absolutely. Hitler used Martin Luther’s disdain for the Jewish rejection of Christ as one of his bullets and even went so far as to emblazon the phrase “Gott Mit Uns” (God is with us) on the soldier’s belt buckles. But that doesn’t mean, as some enemies of Christianity try and say, that he was a Christian. Far from it. Only reference you need to understand that is Christ’s discourse of knowing a tree by the fruit it bears (Matt 7:15-20).
The dilemma the Darwinist finds themselves in is one where they must keep one foot in competing realms, which was articulated well by G.K. Chesterton when he wrote: “He [the Darwinist] goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.” Again, either man derives intrinsic worth from an objective moral authority (God) or he’s just another species that survives by tooth and claw. Take your pick and stay consistent in your philosophy.
myTmuus,
It is not acceptable to say that Hitler was driven by his Christian understanding to do what he did, as Christ condemns all attacking of another person, especially one's perceived enemies.
Truly, honestly, historically, Hitler used Nietzche and Darwin to logically work out what he did. Granted he was a bit crazy himself to say the least, he justified what he did with the two biggest atheist philosophies possibly ever to have existed (with Marx somewhere in there). There is not really much denying this, perhaps Hitler abused the message of Christianity, and played on peoples' fears, but he did not logically work it out from Christianity (thus abused).
mcfbc,
Nazis illogically used Christianity and a "cultural" form of Christianity. They logically used Nietzsche and Darwinian theory.
Merkin,
Actually you have defined a scientific 'law', scientific 'theory' is not afforded that same honor, though it can have a good amount of support. Thus the law of gravity and the theory of evolution, we do not say the law of evolution.
Well if a scholarly institution such as Coral Ridge Ministries agrees with the Expelled movie then I'm convinced. (sarcastic lol) Expelled the Movie is actually a form of Holocaust denial. See the link below to Jewish Anti-DefamationLeague website entry on Expelled The Movie.
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm
I find it very telling that creationsits and id'ers have to resort to revisionist history and propaganda instead of going thru the normal channels of science to demonstrate what they have to say. Please see the Link below to Expelled Exposed which shows how the Expelled Movie is just propaganda, dishonest, and a form of brainwashing.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
Well said myTmuus. One of the benefits of having lived in Salem, Massachusetts were the almost daily reminders of what led to the hanging and, in one case, crushing to death of innocent people. The deaths were the result of faithful Christian adherence to what was believed to be instructions by God. The good folk of Salem relied on the Bible to justify their killing infinitely more than Hitler relied on Darwin for justification.
merkin,
In your post to timothy brown you have just explained the power of deception. Take the counterfeit dollar for example, it is so close to the actual dollar it is almost impossible to tell the difference. The theory is that it is the real thing as for all practical purposes it has been presented as the real thing. In reality though it is a fake, an alternative to the original. Changing the meaning of words to support a claim shows in and of itself the claim is false or the original meaning of the word would not have to changed. Satan created this kind of doubt in the garden when he challenged Eve with "surely God didn't say..." in other words Satan ways saying surely that is not what God meant when He said... Yes you have just shown us the power of deception,,, Thanks.
wow is all this over a movie how about this fact.
In the 70's i remember getting science books from time life which have since been destroyed years ago due to house fire, one book in particular had darwins theory of evolution
and i remember how it portrayed people from africa and australia as subhuman.
I can just imagine what darwin thought of people who were mentally challenged,
christianity gives social conscienceness to love thy neighbour, forgive thy neighbour
what is the alternative hmmm lets see hatred, violence, war, famine, disease and the list goes on, lack of faith in GOD is what allows man to do whatever without a conscience.
Scientific theories are just that...theories, but the truth is this people have lost their jobs because they believe in Intelligent design which is what the basis of the movie is about.
So a scientist who does not believe in GOD that is his/her right, but when people lose jobs either way does not make it right.
How about this thought with all the transplant technology in the medical field how come they can't transplant the heart from our nearest lving relative the Ape or Chimpanzee....yet they can use parts from a pig (heart valves and the intestines) plus.
Yet the pig is so far from being a relative to man.
It all stems from pride
some people don't want to humble themselves
thinking that in that process they lose the ability to think and theorize....
timothy brown,
I'm surprised to read that you're trained in philosophy. Haven't you studied the philosophy of science? A 'theory,' as you mean it, is not in any sense the same as a scientific theory. The word 'theory' has an entirely different meaning in the world of science than it does in ordinary language. A theory is a term of honor in science, reserved for those observations that are so well supported by data that they are considered to be fact. Evolutionary theory—like cell theory, or atomic theory, or the general theory of relativity—is as close to fact as anything is in science.
This article is boring and predictable, it has only been published due to the statement (this week)by the Jewish group, The Anti-Defamation League,
"The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.
"Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness."
Who to believe?
Not up to me to say so, but I think its a no brainer...
Steve
I've not seen the movie so I should probably not comment, but..
As a Philosophy major, I was left with the impression that Hitler was more influenced with the writings of Nietzsche and particularly the book "Beyond Good and Evil", than in the more pseudo-scientific writings of Darwin. Though Nietzsche acknowledges Darwin, it is done only to support his hypothesis.
What amazes me is that even Darwin considered his work a theory. Many supposedly smart people treat Darwin’s theories as fact rather than theory. They criticize Christians for ignoring science when we recognize the difference between belief and empirical truth. We accept that believing in the trinity and divine creation is an act of faith. They don't seem able to realize they are enamored with a "religion of Science" that is so small it can't even acknowledge the difference between theory and fact.
The title of this piece says it all.
Here's one that you will never see: 'Expelled' Correct on Darwin, Hitler Link, Says Majority of Historians'
I don't understand why these issues have to be so black and white. I have a degree in history and focused my studies on WW2. The fact is the Nazis used a variety of arguments to justify their actions, including social darwinism and Christianity. The Nazis were masters at propaganda, and they had to develop different arguments to justify their cruelty to different audiences. The Nazis only concern was power. They didn't care about the truth, and they certainlly didn't care about what philosophy it took too convince someone that they were the people of distiny.
<<A major part of the film also explores and traces the roots of Darwinism, and its relation to the genocidal policies of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and the major tyrants of the 20th century.>>
Andrea Yates said Satan told her to drown her five children.
Satan is a character in the Bible.
Deanna Laney said the Lord sent her signs to beat her three sons with stones.
Signs, prophecy and stoning sinners is found in the Bible.
And the night before Dena Schlosser became the latest Texas mother to take her child's life, she told her husband she wanted to give her children to God.
Dedicating children unto the Lord is found in the Bible.
Three examples of what the Bible inspired people to do. Do we take away ALL Bibles, do we STOP teaching people to read? Clearly if Darwin inspired Hitler's deeds, the comparison I am presenting that The Bible inspired acts of cruelty is applicable in this debate. Is that vicious or just inquisitive on my part- be honest now!
My guess is that it must anger SOME Christians that Hitler thought his Christian beliefs and religious understandings were instigating him to perpetrate his mass killings, state sponsored propaganda and anti-Semitic philosophies, they're willing to lie at any cost to deny the truth.
It's just like SOME Christians who have been promoting their recent unfounded campaign that blamed the Holocaust on Homosexualityt(e.g. The Pink Swastika.) This nasty theory was instigated to further their lies, misconceptions and deceit, ALL done in the name of the most high GOD. Isn't it pathetic that SOME stop at nothing to harm others by justifying flat out fabrications if it means a closer step towards Christian Domination?
<<“Among German historians, there’s really not much debate about whether or not Hitler was a social Darwinist. He clearly was drawing on Darwinian ideas. It drove pretty much everything that he did. It was not just a peripheral part of his ideology,” Richard Weikart>>
If you want to believe that, fine, I see that by actually reading Mein Kampf by Hitler he's very much religiously inspired to commit genocide:
Hence today 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.
Not satisfied? What about this?
The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine.
What about this?
Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-and this against their own nation.
<<“We have had nearly 150 years of the theory of Darwinian evolution. And what has it brought us – whether Darwin intended it or not? Millions of deaths, the destruction of those deemed ‘inferior,’ the devaluing of human life, and increasing hopelessness. Darwin’s legacy has been deadly indeed,” D. James Kennedy in 2006.
Travelling by trains, boats, luxury liners, submarines, automobiles, busses, metro rails, airplanes and even bicycles causes MEASURABLE death, loss of property, loss of limbs, and tragic human suffering- I think everybody aught to walk to their destinations because public safety and the end of DEATH and SUFFERING requires it. Transportation has instigated non-stop deaths of innocent people, yet Dr. Kennedy ignored that fact in order to push his Christian Agenda.
I think that's really unfair of Kennedy, don't you? I am going to lobby against travel of any kind except pedestrian.
Quecat said...
<<Can you say that in public? Every Darwinist within earshot is going to spew as much hatred and rhetoric as possible in order to shout down the truth. Ideas have consequences - evolution is no exception.>>
Are you willing to discredit the scientific theories and blame Albert Einstein, who facilitated the development of the invention of the atomic bomb, for the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Your logic implies that you will.
What negative consequences and measurable harm does the theory of evolution pose? SOME Christians believe it is only a theory- if it's only a theory, Quecat, how can it cause measurable harm?
With that leap in logic, you might as well just say video games based on sex, theft and violence are forcing children to become rapists, murderers and thieves. Right?
“The ideas of Charles Darwin helped fuel the Nazi killing machine, which took the lives of some 10-15 million people,” he(Jerry Newcombe) said in a statement.
Such illogic.
It could be justifiably and hotly argued that the repetitive late night infomercials promoting Ginzu Knives are responsible for the rise in stabbing DEATHS.
It could also be justifiably and hotly argued that cookbooks inspire people to overeat and become GLUTTONS. I mean, just looking at all the photos of the delicious food in a cookbook creates an insurmountable sense of hunger.
It could also be justifiably and hotly argued that just looking at pictures of money causes people to become GREEDY.
Linking an idea with Hitler or Nazism has become a common form of argument ascribing guilt by association.
"Devaluing human life? Of course it does. "
Right, like no large human massacres occurred prior to the WWII period. Heck, ook at all the wars and religious motivated ones prior to this period! Look at the very ones in your book and quran!
What also devalues humane life is when some religious group has an idea that they are 'gods chosen people' and that it is there duty to go rampage other lands and utterly put their people to the sword, except for the virgin women of course, no barbaric rampage is complete without some treats.
“if, after all, you are only the product of random chance”
Again, WHERE is the pure randomness in evolutionary biology that you speak of? Evolution isn’t totally random or at chance, it works according to natural processes (fundamental physical laws), and in the abstract is deterministic not random. Only mutations are random.
“As for AO's reference to the Nazi's use of "god's" name - it's quite appropriate that you used the lower-case "g".”
I always refer to it and other things in lower case even though generally they are used with an upper case, this doesn’t have to be 100% grammatically correct to convey the message. Besides, the belts used by the Nazi’s DID use a capital G.
This is a great movie and all Christians from the mainline denominations of Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox and Evangelicals should see this movie.
Also, please read Dinesh D'Souza new book, "What is so great about Christianity." This book takes people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens to task about atheism, secularism and darwinism and how the world is much better off under a Christian majority than Secular.
Basically, Dinesh kicks their butts in a very charitable, but intellectually stimulating way. He makes these Atheists feel like they just got into a gun fight and they only brought a knife.
Way to go Stein and D'Souza! By the way, Stein is Jewish and D'Souza is Catholic and both are staunch Conservatives!!!
*gasp*
Can you say that in public? Every Darwinist within earshot is going to spew as much hatred and rhetoric as possible in order to shout down the truth. Ideas have consequences - evolution is no exception.
Devaluing human life? Of course it does. The inherent dignity of men is merely a social construct and self-deception if, after all, you are only the product of random chance having acted on a puddle of goo a zillion years ago.
As for AO's reference to the Nazi's use of "god's" name - it's quite appropriate that you used the lower-case "g". Many men believe in and fight in the name of their personal versions of "god" - but there is only one true God.
I cried during parts of this movie. I had a chance to visit Madonik, the first concentration camp in Europe (Poland) before Dakau and Austwitz (I know I'm butchering the spelling). I also had a father that went through a brutal health battle before he died 3/11/2008. Just hearing the parallels of between Darwinism and the medical profession made me weep, thinking we do not have a chance other than to trust the Lord for our health.
3 words, gott mit uns. translation: 'god is with us' and it was inscribed on every single Nazi belt buckle, google it. to think that the reformation, and over a millenia of anti-semtism stemming from Constintine had nothing to do with that era would be to ignore all of the past history prior to darwins idea.