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.
Today's Christian News Online - The Christian Post
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. (JN 8:32)
CP HOME
> Entertainment > Movie
'Expelled' Correct on Darwin, Hitler Link, Says Christian Group
By
Alexander J. Sheffrin
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, May. 01 2008 01:36 PM EDT
[-] Text [+]
Comments
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 aske