« First « Previous Comments 92 - 105 of 105 Search these comments
Hitler was by no means “religious†by even the remotest definition of anything that would be considered orthodox
Okay, not orthodox. Maybe not religious as in practicing a particular religion. Obviously he was crazy, but he said he was "doing the will of god" and he may have believed it.
Good source on the question: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian
When all is said and done, Krueger says that anecdotal evidence from those close to him near the end of his life suggests that he was a at least a deist, if not a theist. Krueger concludes: "So here's what evidence we have. There is a certain worldview, Nazism. Its leader, Hitler, professes on many occasions to be religious, and he often states that he's doing the will of god. The majority of his followers are openly religious.
Did you actually attend school anywhere? If you really believe the age of enlightenment was Robespierre in the french revolution
I don't know where you went to school, but I refer you to Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" in which he proves in great detail the negative influences of the Enlightenment philosophers on the revolution. I don't understand your reference to Robespierre. I suggest you read Otto Scott’s “Robespierre: The Voice of Virtue†for more study on his enormous influence and the role he played.
he said he was “doing the will of god†and he may have believed it.
So did the crazies that flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Obviously, any religion that teaches such nonsense is unorthodox and completely false.
Obviously, any religion that teaches such nonsense is unorthodox and completely false.
Thanks for breaking that down for me.
You are so welcome. Anytime you need help with your homework lessons, just let me know.
Translation: Right-wing attacks against Democratic Presidents are hateful and are false. Left-wing attacks against Republican Presidents are not hateful because they are just observations and are true.
Well, you have to admit that Bush looks like a monkey though. Right?
Yes.
We all have our own bigotries, I’m bigoted against money-grubbing Jews...
Do you mean like the Hassids in Brooklyn who run diamond or electronics stores? Or do you mean someone with "berg" in their last name, who looks like he might be Jewish, but may not be religious to any degree? Or is it just those who have horns?
Did you actually attend school anywhere? If you really believe the age of enlightenment was Robespierre in the french revolution
I don’t know where you went to school, but I refer you to Edmund Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France†in which he proves in great detail the negative influences of the Enlightenment philosophers on the revolution. I don’t understand your reference to Robespierre. I suggest you read Otto Scott’s “Robespierre: The Voice of Virtue†for more study on his enormous influence and the role he played.
Just curious, do you read your own posts as you type them. Your exact post was:RayAmerica says
The “Enlightenment?†LOL ! Are you referring to the French Revolution?
Which to me means you consider the enlightenment and the French revolution to be one and the same. Then you, not me, reference Robespierre and his reign of terror. Robespierre was a petty tyrant, not a great thinker. You seem to ignore the entire basis of the enlightenment which was to question the divine rights of kings to rule in collusion with the church NOT a repudiation of Christianity. You also totally ignore the causes of the French revolution which was an utterly destitute population starving to death being ruled by a very small, extremely wealthy, totally corrupt elite consisting of the kings court and the church.
Did you read the same Burke letter as I did or just the clip notes. Most of Burke's writing is protesting the confiscation of church lands and defending the role of the church in France. You left out the Burke SUPPORTED the American Revolution, also heavily influenced by the enlightenment philosophy.
Then you continue
RayAmerica says
You can remove all Christian law and morality from society. The French proved this is possible as did the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, Maoists, etc. Don’t be surprised when utter chaos and mass murder follows for all those that refuse to conform and bow to the beast that the state has created.
You are implying that utter chaos and mass murder never happened when the church was involved. The church's hands are literally dripping with the blood of those who refused to conform and bow to the beast the church created for the last 2000 years. Get a grip.
Tell me about the innate christian goodness of the events of:
Constantine
Charlemagne
the cathars
salem witch trials and the Puritans religious police state
knights templar and clement the V
teutonic order
rwanda
holocost
the first crusade atrocity in germany
the third crusade in acre
Pope Innocent III "kill them all, god will know his own"
spanish inquisition
Protestant Inquisition in the 1500's
slaughter of the Huguenots in the 1500's
slaughter of the Anabaptists
Oliver Cromwell
Bogdan Chmielnicki the Cossack Cromwell
The Thirty Years' War.
the bishop of Gdansk
Bucharest 1801
russian pogroms
sudan 1960's
ireland forever
You are implying that utter chaos and mass murder never happened when the church was involved. The church’s hands are literally dripping with the blood of those who refused to conform and bow to the beast the church created
Nice attempt to try to change what I said. I never referenced the "church" which, for the most part, has been corrupted by mankind throughout history. The list that you provided in your post has nothing in common whatsoever with what Christ and the Apostles taught in the New Testament. If you think it does, please show me where it is.
Which to me means you consider the enlightenment and the French revolution to be one and the same.
The French Revolution was the embodiment of enlightenment, secular thinking.
Then you, not me, reference Robespierre and his reign of terror. Robespierre was a petty tyrant, not a great thinker.
You can attempt to diminish Robespierre’s role in the Revolution, but historical facts differ from your understanding. He was in fact recognized as the moral voice of the Revolution and believed that to be the case himself. That's why he morphed into believing he was the embodiment of a new religion with himself being the "Superior Being."
ireland forever
Well that's a new twist on an old saying. Usually Éirinn go Brách sounds more optimistic, but you just mean they'll fight forever.
Anyway, both sides are nominally Christian in that fight. It's more about who's the landlord and who's the tenant, and how it got to be that way.
Nice attempt to try to change what I said. I never referenced the “church†which, for the most part, has been corrupted by mankind throughout history
No you said "christian law and morality". So christian law and morality has nothing to do with "church"? interesting idea. kind of like immaculate conception but for morality. As a biblical scholar you should certainly know the teachings of Jesus was very secular. Jesus never declared any laws, only espoused principles. The christian laws came from the church. So which is it that you are referring to, the teachings of Jesus or the laws of the church?
That’s why he morphed into believing he was the embodiment of a new religion with himself being the “Superior Being.â€
Bullshit, he morphed into a totalitarian tyrant, just one of a long list going back to the dawn of history, trying to use enlightenment ideas to justify it. The American revolution was also the embodiment of enlightenment, secular thinking and the losers didn't get killed in mass. Why not?
The historical facts are that the French revolution in some form, probably a lot less murderous would have happened with or without Robspierre. The system was at an end point, like the czars, like colonialism, like the greek city states, like the roman empire, like every failed system throughout history. It had reached its natural end point in history where the advances in civilization made the existing political structure obsolete, combined with the majority of people being very oppressed and no longer willing to support a very corrupt group of very wealthy leaders. This has gone on throughout history in both the christian and non christian worlds. If you choose to view these events through your conservative lens (Burke is widely considered the father of modern conservatism) as a christian vs secular argument then that's your option. I personally reject it.
You are implying that utter chaos and mass murder never happened when the church was involved. The church’s hands are literally dripping with the blood of those who refused to conform and bow to the beast the church created
Nice attempt to try to change what I said. I never referenced the “church†which, for the most part, has been corrupted by mankind throughout history. The list that you provided in your post has nothing in common whatsoever with what Christ and the Apostles taught in the New Testament. If you think it does, please show me where it is.
Not sure what happened here but you attribute that quote to me. It's not mine.
Christen laws and morality are very good and high level thing to understand for a common public. The high educated people only can only understand such things.
How to recognize spam, by elliemae.
1) poor spelling
2) poor grammar
3) posted in response to another post, yet has nothing in common with the first
4) includes link to website that has nothing to do with the post
5) appears to have been written by someone whose primary language certainly isn't english
« First « Previous Comments 92 - 105 of 105 Search these comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11020270
Well that's one down for Obama.
#politics