How many did God kill vs Satan?

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
How many did God kill vs Satan?

How many people did God kill in the Bible?

It's impossible to say for sure, but plenty. How many did God drown in the flood or burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many first-born Egyptians did he kill? There's just no way to count them all. This list doesn't include those figures.

  SAB, Brick Testament Number Killed Cumulative Total
Lot's wife for looking back Gen.19:26, BT 1 1
Er who was "wicked in the sight of the Lord" Gen.38:7, BT 1 2
Onan for spilling his seed Gen.38:10, BT 1 3
For dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf Ex.32:27-28, 35, BT 3000 3003
Aaron's sons for offering strange fire before the Lord Lev.10:1-3, Num.3:4, 26:61, BT 2 3005
A blasphemer Lev.24:10-23, BT 1 3006
A man who picked up sticks on the SabbathNum.15:32-36, BT 1 3007
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (and their families) Num.16:27, BT 12+ 3019+
Burned to death for offering incense Num.16:35, 26:10, BT 250 3269+
For complaining Num.16:49, BT 14,700 17,969+
For "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab" Num.25:9, BT 24,000 41,969+
Midianite massacre (32,000 virgins were kept alive) Num.31:1-35, BT 90,000+ 131,969+
God tells Joshua to stoned to death Achan (and his family) for taking the accursed thing. Joshua 7:10-12, 24-26, BT 5+ 131,974+
God tells Joshua to attack Ai and do what he did to Jericho (kill everyone). Joshua 8:1-25, BT 12,000 143,974+
God delivered Canaanites and Perizzites Judges 1:4, BT 10,000 153,974+
Ehud delivers a message from God: a knife into the king's belly Jg.3:15-22, BT 1 153,975+
God delivered Moabites Jg.3:28-29, BT 10,000 163,975+
God forces Midianite soldiers to kill each other. Jg.7:2-22, 8:10, BT 120,000 283,975+
The Spirit of the Lord comes on Samson Jg.14:19, BT 30 284,005+
The Spirit of the Lord comes mightily on Samson Jg.15:14-15, BT 1000 285,005+
Samson's God-assisted act of terrorism Jg.16:27-30, BT 3000 288,005+
"The Lord smote Benjamin" Jg.20:35-37, BT 25,100 313,105+
More Benjamites Jg.20:44-46 25,000 338,105+
For looking into the ark of the Lord 1 Sam.6:19 50,070 388,175+
God delivered Philistines 1 Sam.14:12 20 388,195+
Samuel (at God's command) hacks Agag to death 1 Sam.15:32-33 1 388,196+
"The Lord smote Nabal." 1 Sam.25:38 1 388,197+
Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling 2 Sam.6:6-7, 1 Chr.13:9-10 1 388,198+
David and Bathsheba's baby boy 2 Sam.12:14-18 1 388,199+
Seven sons of Saul hung up before the Lord 2 Sam.21:6-9 7 388,206+
From plague as punishment for David's census (men only; probably 200,000 if including women and children) 2 Sam.24:13, 1 Chr.21:7 70,000+ 458,206+
A prophet for believing another prophet's lie 1 Kg.13:1-24 1 458,207+
God delivers the Syrians into the Israelites' hands 1 Kg.20:28-29 100,000 558,207+
God makes a wall fall on Syrian soldiers 1 Kg.20:30 27,000 585,207+
God sent a lion to eat a man for not killing a prophet 1 Kg.20:35-36 1 585,208+
Ahaziah is killed for talking to the wrong god. 2 Kg.1:2-4, 17, 2 Chr.22:7-9 1 585,209+
Burned to death by God 2 Kg.1:9-12 102 585,311+
God sends two bears to kill children for making fun of Elisha's bald head 2 Kg.2:23-24 42 585,343+
Trampled to death for disbelieving Elijah 2 Kg.7:17-20 1 585,344+
Jezebel2 Kg.9:33-37 1 585,355+
God sent lions to kill "some" foreigners 2 Kg.17:25-26 3+ 585,358+
Sleeping Assyrian soldiers2 Kg.19:35, 2 Chr.32:21, Is.37:36 185,000 770,358+
Saul 1 Chr.10:14 1 770,359+
God delivers Israel into the hands of Judah 2 Chr.13:15-17 500,000 1,270,359+
Jeroboam 2 Chr.13:20 1 1,270,360+
"The Lord smote the Ethiopians." 2 Chr.14:9-14 1,000,000 2,270,360+
God kills Jehoram by making his bowels fall out 2 Chr.21:14-19 1 2,270,361+
Ezekiel's wife Ezek.24:15-18 1 2,270,362+
Ananias and Sapphira Acts 5:1-10 2 2,270,364+
Herod Acts 12:23, BT 1 2,270,365+


But how does this compare with Satan? How many did he kill in the Bible?

Well SAB can only find ten, and even these he shares with God, since God allowed him to do it as a part of a bet. Steve's talking about the seven sons and three daughters of Job. There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job ... And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters. ... And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? Then Satan answered the LORD ... put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. ... And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house...And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee. -- Job 1:1-19 So it seems that both Satan and God share the blame (or the credit) for these killings. If so, then the tally would be:

Lots!

Source/Credit: Steve Wells Skeptics Annotated Bible Check him out:

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
s0m3b0dy wrote: would you


s0m3b0dy wrote:

would you care to quote the other half of my first sentence which you cut off at the point where it would favor you?

That's not what I was doing. I was pointing out that big bang theory is not a creation event.

 

Quote:

and even if the universe is a a pace with finite spatially or chronologically, does this disprove that the "circle" which we are walking on could be expanding, or that it came from a single point?

It would show that the universe requires no creation event at all.


Quote:

as faras i can see, we wouldnt notice much cna ge in the zsize of the circle we are walking around the bigger it got because we couldnt tell where was the beggining to start off with.

explain how the planets and galaxies are moving apart form each other if theuniverse is nto expanding.

I've never denied that the universe is expanding. The point is that the big bang is not a creation theory.


Quote:

again ill tell you why i said "(creation)" a few posts back. i only said that because that is the point when god created the universe
 by making that inifnitely small point go off.  i wasent saying the "big bang" was a "creation theory".

Actually you were, but anyway.... you just said it was when 'god created the universe by making the infinitely small point go off"

So are you are saying it is a creation event or not? You are using the word 'created' you know.

And if it ISN'T a creation even, then why do you need a 'god' to be involved in the first place?

How can you be a theist and NOT be for god creating the universe anyway?!

Quote:

 make sure and quite the entire phrasethis time and not only the half that favors you.

I've quoted your entire quote now.  It doesn't help you, and I have no need to run from anything you say.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
s0m3b0dy wrote: todangst

s0m3b0dy wrote:
todangst wrote:
Ok. Your god must be perfectly responsible, I will agree....

 

Now, can you explain why the fact that god 'created' life gives him the right to torture it or kill it?

Does might make right?

perhaps we did, perhaps we didnt. after all christ WAS born from a virgin. how would that be possible without a man?, you would ask.

life belongs to god. he only borrows it to living things, and he doesent tell you that you have 100 years before giving it back to him. no. he lets you hold it while he wants you to. if he feels like it, he has the right to take it away.

You didn't answer the question. Does might make right?

 

Quote:
 and im not sure what you mean by " torture" it, but the closest thing that comes to mind for that would be some form of punishment dealt form god. if you are tihnking of a being who tortures someone for no reason at all, you are confusing god with satan my friend.

No, you've got it backwards: it's your god who puts people in 'hell' for eternity just for their beliefs....'eternal punishment' is torture. Plain and simple.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Wow. You made that easier

Wow. You made that easier than I thought you would. By the way, I understand English is not your primary language, but it would still help if you used capital letters. I hear that's customary in most languages.

Anyway, that model of ethics, as any historian, psychologist, anthropologist, sociologist, philosopher, or ethicist will tell you, is so infantile in its understanding of human nature that anyone espousing it should not be taken seriously.

So, let me sum up the next few posts so we can avoid the inevitable:

1) I say "God doesn't live by his own ethics, and he commands his followers to break the very code he gave them."

2) You say, "God is just in all that he does, and that is why he sent his son, so that we can be forgiven for committing the occasional sin of murder when it is either forced on us, or when god tells us to."

3) I say, "But your logic is circular. You're saying that murder is always wrong, except for when it's ok, and God is the only one who can tell us it's ok... but that's the same thing as saying that murder is not always wrong, so we're back at square one."

4) You say, "But murder is always wrong, for humans, but God created free will, and because of free will, murder happens, and that is why we need Jesus, so that we can be forgiven for sinning."

5) I reply, "But your free will argument is meaningless, for if God is omnipotent, and omniscient, then he created the situation in which I would be forced into sinning by virtue of having free will. Therefore, I am not responsible for my own actions, since I have no choice but to act in the way that God knows I will act, regardless of my feelings on the matter. Since I am not responsible for my actions, it is GOD who needs to be forgiven for forcing me into a position where I could not help but damn myself to hell by not believing in him."

6) At this point, you will reply with an argument that has been refuted numerous times, and I will get bored and go downtown to have a drink.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Tadlington wrote: Sapient

Tadlington wrote:
Sapient wrote:

 Do you give any of your money to any Church in the process?

what i give to my religion i give freely and not under compulsion. so no plate is passed around so that you feel compelled to give. i also do not believe that the more you give the better a place in heaven you recieve, indeed, the bible(rev 14 :1-3) only mention 144,000 people who are redeemed from the earth, it doesnt mention anymore people who go to heaven, and i am not one of those people.

is this the point you  are getting at?

 

The point I'm getting at is that you say you'd rather live your life believing as you seem to feel it's a safer risk, however if religion is false, by your financial support you allow the system to continue.  Belief alone is less risky than belief that accompanies financial gains for a church to continue to push their fraudulent and faulty system on others.  If religion is a scam, as I believe it is, you are giving aid to the largest scam the Earth has ever known. 

 

Quote:
p.s i havent got the hang of this quote thing

I fixed it this time. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
s0m3b0dy wrote: i find it

s0m3b0dy wrote:

i find it interesting how you were the only person who dared attempt to question my post. very well. allow me to answer you your response. abortion is wrong. not only by christian standards, religious standards, but even by yours,you would think it was wrong . y ? according to you, this is the only life we get correct? well if that is so, by having an abortion you are denying a newborn child his life. his only life, just because you don't feel suited to have a child. if i knew for a fact this was all there was for me, and that i would never come to liveagain after i died, i sure as hell would rather go hungry for a few days then to get dismembered inside my mother before i was even born. abortion is murder.

If this logic was valid (it's not) then one would abstain from sex as well because they kill about 7 million potential lives in the attempt to give birth to one.

 

Don't assume you know how we think, ask questions instead.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: What is this?

KSMB wrote:
What is this? "Invasion of the irrational and illiterate"-day?

 

Get used to it, it's only gonna pick up now.  Just try to remain calm as you deal with people who bring to the table the same points that have been refuted thousands of times by us, and other internet communities.  Keep in mind while this is old hat to us, this may be very new to some of the new posters here.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


s0m3b0dy
Theist
Posts: 7
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:

todangst wrote:


s0m3b0dy wrote:

would you care to quote the other half of my first sentence which you cut off at the point where it would favor you?

That's not what I was doing. I was pointing out that big bang theory is not a creation event.

 

Quote:

and even if the universe is a a pace with finite spatially or chronologically, does this disprove that the "circle" which we are walking on could be expanding, or that it came from a single point?

It would show that the universe requires no creation event at all.


Quote:

as faras i can see, we wouldnt notice much cna ge in the zsize of the circle we are walking around the bigger it got because we couldnt tell where was the beggining to start off with.

explain how the planets and galaxies are moving apart form each other if theuniverse is nto expanding.

I've never denied that the universe is expanding. The point is that the big bang is not a creation theory.


Quote:

again ill tell you why i said "(creation)" a few posts back. i only said that because that is the point when god created the universe
by making that inifnitely small point go off. i wasent saying the "big bang" was a "creation theory".

Actually you were, but anyway.... you just said it was when 'god created the universe by making the infinitely small point go off"

So are you are saying it is a creation event or not? You are using the word 'created' you know.

And if it ISN'T a creation even, then why do you need a 'god' to be involved in the first place?

How can you be a theist and NOT be for god creating the universe anyway?!

Quote:

make sure and quite the entire phrasethis time and not only the half that favors you.

I've quoted your entire quote now. It doesn't help you, and I have no need to run from anything you say.

ok i see where you derived the idea that i was calling it a "creation theory" from.i apologized. thats not what i was trying to get through to you. what i am saying is that the thing which caused the universe to expand was God. there thats better.

and even as you say the universe didn't require creation, explain to me how all things in the universe came to be? did they all come out of nothing? and if so, explain to me how i can create something out of nothing.

and the only reason i sometimes mention things which are contradicting to my own ideas, is because i am asking things form which( i believe) would be your point of view. it does not mean i tihnk the same way you do.

Sapient wrote:
s0m3b0dy wrote:

i find it interesting how you were the only person who dared attempt to question my post. very well. allow me to answer you your response. abortion is wrong. not only by christian standards, religious standards, but even by yours,you would think it was wrong . y ? according to you, this is the only life we get correct? well if that is so, by having an abortion you are denying a newborn child his life. his only life, just because you don't feel suited to have a child. if i knew for a fact this was all there was for me, and that i would never come to liveagain after i died, i sure as hell would rather go hungry for a few days then to get dismembered inside my mother before i was even born. abortion is murder.

If this logic was valid (it's not) then one would abstain from sex as well because they kill about 7 million potential lives in the attempt to give birth to one.

 

Don't assume you know how we think, ask questions instead.

so what you are saying is murder is ok? killing innocent babies is ok?

sperm do not have souls. in fact, they should barely be considered anything more then the sugar you add to your coffee.

now lets look at it from a different point of view. lets say that each one of those sperm cells would turn out to be a different person. would god let them all live if only one or two of them were worthy of the gift of life?

but now lets look at it from yet another point of view. sperm cells are simply vessels for the genetic information required to create a baby. nothing more. that much sperm cells are release into the woman because as im sure you know her uterus's walls are coated with acid to prevent infections. even with 7million cells, it takes several tries for even one to find its destination, because it sure is dangerous for them. nowyou might say "why did God make it so dangerous then?" like i said, to prevent infections.

 

due to the fact i no longer have time to duscuss this matter (for which i enjoyed discussing with you), i must now leave. feel free to contant me through email if you wish to continue this some other time: manodobrasa@hotmail.com

 

one last thing. until humankind can prove EVERYTHING that can possibly be proven, with answers which have no holes in them and are perfectly clear, it is irational to say there is no God. farewell, and God bless.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Fare thee well, Hiawatha!

Fare thee well, Hiawatha!

The nice thing about when theists try to get their "last word" in is that they're just giving us one last chance to shoot down one of their arguments.

one last thing. until humankind can prove EVERYTHING that can possibly be proven, with answers which have no holes in them and are perfectly clear, it is irational to say there is no God. farewell, and God bless.

It is also irrational to say that there are no celestial teapots, no two headed unicorns, and no band of eighteen leprechauns, sixteen called Marcell and two not, who dance the tango in my refrigerator when I close the door.

Have fun living in that universe. And PLEASE, PLEASE, learn to capitalize words other than "God." Thank you.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
s0m3b0dy wrote: so what

s0m3b0dy wrote:

so what you are saying is murder is ok? killing innocent babies is ok?

 If you think it's wrong you should question why you worship a god who kills millions of potential humans everyday.

Quote:
sperm do not have souls. in fact, they should barely be considered anything more then the sugar you add to your coffee.

 1. You don't have evidence for a soul

2.  the evidence that you think you have that you don't have doesn't prove the soul enters after a sperm has developed.

3. If you think (and we could argue this if you want) that souls enter at the moment of conception than there is a whole bunch of other problems you open yourself up to.

Quote:
but now lets look at it from yet another point of view. sperm cells are simply vessels for the genetic information required to create a baby. nothing more. that much sperm cells are release into the woman because as im sure you know her uterus's walls are coated with acid to prevent infections. even with 7million cells, it takes several tries for even one to find its destination, because it sure is dangerous for them. nowyou might say "why did God make it so dangerous then?" like i said, to prevent infections.

1. A sperm isn't a cell

2. The notion that an all powerful god needs to line a uterus with acid that kills 7 million potential babies during intercourse to prevent infection is an insane rationalization of magnificent proportions. How anyone could justify such a disgusting invention of a loving all powerful being is beyond any sense of critical thinking I can respect.

Quote:
due to the fact i no longer have time to duscuss this matter (for which i enjoyed discussing with you), i must now leave. feel free to contant me through email if you wish to continue this some other time: manodobrasa@hotmail.com

Busy for the rest of your life eh?  Plenty of time to talk to ten people in private at once, but no time to make one post that addresses hundreds at a time?  I see how you work, got it.

Quote:
one last thing. until humankind can prove EVERYTHING that can possibly be proven, with answers which have no holes in them and are perfectly clear, it is irational to say there is no God. farewell, and God bless.

And using your logic it is irrational to say "there is a god" or "god bless" as you can't prove a god exists.  So farewell, we'll be thinking for you, and reminding you that you said goodbye when you come back to post again.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


ligrl4387
ligrl4387's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
ok.. let me start off by

ok.. let me start off by setting an example of "brain washing" i have twin baby brothers. my stepmom is catholic and my dad doesn't have a religion. my brothers are about 3 now, and every night at dinner, my stepmom has them both fold their hands for alittle prayer. "bless us oh lord for these thy gifts we are about to recieve from they bounty through christ our lord, amen" we know absolutely nothing when we are born, duh, so what our parents teach us, or watch on tv, or whatever, we believe.. right? because we know NOTHING ELSE. we are givin NO OTHER CHOICE. until we reach the age at which we can really think for ourselves. i know some people start to believe when they are older, i know this.. but this is the most common way. 

so anyone who's not christian will go to hell.. ok.. what about buddists, or jewish people? will they go to hell because they are not christians? does their religion not matter at all?

i like to read books by sarah dessen. do i really know she wrote it? was i there when she wrote it? did i witness it? should we believe everything we read? especially since we have no PROOF to back it up. how do we know who actually wrote the bible? were you there?  maybe he was smokin something and had hallucinations. maybe they were dreams. i have no idea. and yes, neither do you. at least me, as an athiest, can at least admit that i also have no proof that he doesn't exist. but i'm the "gotta see it to believe it" kinda person.

my uncle and i agree that its kinda of a good thing that there's religion. even though we dont believe in it.. people who need hope, and faith, have it. they feel comforted that they will go to "heaven" when they die, so they aren't afraid.  


Tadlington
Tadlington's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Tadlington

Sapient wrote:
Tadlington wrote:
Sapient wrote:

 Do you give any of your money to any Church in the process?

what i give to my religion i give freely and not under compulsion. so no plate is passed around so that you feel compelled to give. i also do not believe that the more you give the better a place in heaven you recieve, indeed, the bible(rev 14 :1-3) only mention 144,000 people who are redeemed from the earth, it doesnt mention anymore people who go to heaven, and i am not one of those people.

is this the point you  are getting at?

The point I'm getting at is that you say you'd rather live your life believing as you seem to feel it's a safer risk, however if religion is false, by your financial support you allow the system to continue.  Belief alone is less risky than belief that accompanies financial gains for a church to continue to push their fraudulent and faulty system on others.  If religion is a scam, as I believe it is, you are giving aid to the largest scam the Earth has ever known. 

Quote:
p.s i havent got the hang of this quote thing

I fixed it this time. 

To me the risk is very real, and ill agree with you on this point that much if not the majority of the worlds religions are false and are a scam, the reason i say this is because i was raised a catholic but when i asked certian questions on various things that i did not understand in the bible, i was told that a lot of it is a mystery. Why would a God have the bible written for humans and yet not have us understand it? That is totally illogical, so i looked a bit deeper into in various teachings of the catholic faith, like the trinity, hellfire, heaven etc.

I used independant research material and also used the catholic encyclopedia, and i came to the conclusion that it's the bible that is adjusted to fit around the religion and not the religion fitted around the bible. So in this case what they teach is false.

I am using the catholic religion in this instance but it also includes any religion that believes in the trinity, hellfire and the rest, my research is still ongoing, mainly involving christianity, i know little about the rest of the worlds religions.

The king James bible is full of inaccuracies, it is no wonder people say the bible contradicts itself, certian scriptures and punctuatiion are changed to suit what they preach, and if this is so then they are preaching what man wants not what God wants.

I also rejected any religion that did not practice what it preached, im not saying just the odd individual here or there but as a whole.Do all if not the majority of their members practice what they preach whit regard to what the bible says.

I do not think you can also tar all religions with the same brush, it would be like you getting drunk every night and me saying your whole family are a bunch of drunks, (just an illustration)but your other half may be tea total. So it boils down to a question of elimination and to do this you have to research.

I respect that the conclusions you yourselves have come to say ,there is no god, but to me there is a God there, its just finding him involves wading through all the religious misinformation. Much of my study also involves looking at independant historical and archaeological evidence, much of which support bible account. Ok, there is still a lot of stuff still to prove, but that is the thing, a lot of it also requires faith, if some of what is written in the bible has been proven as accurate whats to say the rest isnt??

Again it boils down to getting rid the rubbish thats been added or indeed finding what has been deleted to or from the bible, an dthis is why the major religions fall flat on their faces .

Also people like yourselves realise that religion maybe a huge scam, that is why people leave the churches and attendance at them are declining more and more, and who can blame them?? I my self left the church because of this, it is not because i do not think there is no God but that they are misrepresenting him.

Again, i respect your own veiws and find them rather intriguing, but i wont be convinced that there is not a God. It is merely a proccess of finding the right one that had the bible written.

p.s thanx for fixing the quote thing, but you may have your work cut out for you Smiling

p.p.s

the word "brainwashing" can be thrown around any which way about people who may seem extreme in their views or just have different opinions, wether raised to them or taught them later in life. That word should be used very lightly. Everyone in this world is shown or taught things they never knew or may not fully understand and you may not agree with because of what you were taught, it does not mean they are "brainwashed", just different of opinion. If they came around to your way of thinking, would someone not consider that you brainwashed them??


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, this is the only life

Yeah, this is the only life we get. But fetus =/= person. A fetus is a cluster of cells with no actual thought. And the soul is an absurd concept that we don't believe in so don't bring it up.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


smparker21
Theist
smparker21's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Just because a person can

Just because a person can think doesn't mean we are anything more than clusters of cells.  At any rate, the fetus - life comparison is not the main reason behind the belief that abortion is wrong.  It's about people not taking any proactive responsibility with regard to their sexual exploration.  Put another way, yeah a fetus can be aborted, what about AIDS or genital herpes?

Oh and there seems to be a lot of talk in this thread about the millions of sperm (cells) that God shouldn't be allowed to kill.  It seems to be because these sperm are - get this - POTENTIAL BABIES, but we should have whatever say we want for a fetus? 


smparker21
Theist
smparker21's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Interesting.

Let's suppose for a second that abortion = murder.  For you to be able to say that abortion is wrong (without resorting to religion), you must also say that murder is wrong -- not just sometimes, but all the time.  If you say that murder is sometimes ok, then it doesn't necessarily follow that abortion is wrong, and you have to come up with some other justification.

So... You are obviously opposed to the death sentence in any form... ever.

You are also opposed to fertility clinics because they "kill babies" all the time.

You are also opposed to the IUD as a method of birth control, as it is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy, but it virtually always causes a miscarriage when fertilization occurs.

You are also a pacifist.  You believe that we should never defend ourselves with lethal force if our house, country, etc... is invaded.  You believe that if someone tries to kill you, you can protect yourself, but that you cannot, under any circumstances, kill the person who is trying to kill you.

It follows that as a good Christian who believes that murder is always wrong, you believe that America, as a Christian Nation, should destroy all of its guns and weapons, for if we used them, we would be sinning. 

Ok, enough about the things you obviously believe, since all of these beliefs are naturally deduced from your position on abortion. 

Would you care to chime in?  Do you agree with everything I've said?

I'll chime in too. 

Yes murder is wrong, but killing in self defense or the defense of others (which would probably be a last resort wouldn't it), which I believe also includes the death penalty, is justifiable.

In my opinion pacifism is almost on the same wavelength as murder - instead of taking the life of another without cause, you are in favor of surrendering your life (and/or someone else's life) without even putting up a fight.  Life is a gift.

As far as America destroying all of its weapons is concerned, who the %&$#? is that Rosie O'Donnell?  We need firearms to protect ourselves.

As far as IUDs are concerned, if another method of birth control would be more effective and/or not cause miscarriages in the event of a failure then YEAH I'm against the IUD let's try somethin else.

That's what Christians would believe, as far as I can tell, people on both sides feel free to respond.  Specially Hamby gotta see that sig again. 

(Just one thought - small cat with AK47 vs big dog with bazooka)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
OK, you have proven yourself

OK, you have proven yourself irrational. Goodbye. You have shown yourself as a nutcase.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 "Thou shalt not

 "Thou shalt not kill/murder except when (include plethora of cases including "God tells me to" and "I feel like it&quotEye-wink",  eh?

 You're correct. Most Christians do believe that. They're showing themselves to be as moral as their God.

 That should scare everyone.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Rich_Rodriguez
RRS Academy AdminSuperfan
Rich_Rodriguez's picture
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-08-11
User is offlineOffline
All of these Xian idiots

All of these Xian idiots argue the same illogical crap time and time again.  I dont believe this one had the nerve to use the "argument from ignorance". There are things we are not supposed to believe? How childish is that? Truth be told your silly religion is coming to end and it wont be soon enough.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Silly Christian! Yes murder

Silly Christian!

Yes murder is wrong, but killing in self defense or the defense of others (which would probably be a last resort wouldn't it), which I believe also includes the death penalty, is justifiable.

So what you're saying is that killing is not always murder, so the ad hoc assertion that abortion is murder, and therefore is wrong, doesn't follow without more argument. The original argument hinged on killing always being wrong to prove that abortion is morally wrong.

In my opinion pacifism is almost on the same wavelength as murder - instead of taking the life of another without cause, you are in favor of surrendering your life (and/or someone else's life) without even putting up a fight. Life is a gift.

No, no, no, kiddo. The original point that someone was trying to make is that regardless of whether or not religion is involved, abortion is wrong. If we take religion out, then life is not a gift, it's a fact, and has no moral value whatsoever. (Don't tell me I said life has no value. Read the words and understand their meaning, please!) If you believe that murder is always wrong (which you don't, by the way!) then pacifism is the only possible option. What you guys are failing to see is that this whole thing has been an argument assuming that YOU are right, and the conclusions I posted are the natural result of YOUR beliefs, not mine. It's proving you wrong by assuming you're right.

As far as America destroying all of its weapons is concerned, who the %&$#? is that Rosie O'Donnell? We need firearms to protect ourselves.

Again... this is a natural consequence of believing that murder is always wrong. Weapons are only used to kill, so destroying them is the only way to prevent mass murder. Not my position, Rosie... it's yours if you apply logic to the abortion argument.

As far as IUDs are concerned, if another method of birth control would be more effective and/or not cause miscarriages in the event of a failure then YEAH I'm against the IUD let's try somethin else.

I can't really think of anything intelligent to say to such an inane statement. Here's the best I can do...

Duuuuuuhhhhhh...

Here's the thing. Virtually nobody believes that killing is always wrong. Christians don't believe it, atheists don't believe it, agnostics don't believe it. Why then spout the stupid argument that because abortion is killing (assuming that a fetus is a person, which I'm only doing for the sake of argument at this time) it is necessarily wrong?!

It's a double standard, just like every other argument that Christians trot out to defend the indefensible.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


smparker21
Theist
smparker21's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: OK, you

MattShizzle wrote:
OK, you have proven yourself irrational. Goodbye. You have shown yourself as a nutcase.

Uh huh.  By whose standards again?  Oh yeah, the ones who are capable of understanding everything in the universe.

Gotcha.


smparker21
Theist
smparker21's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:  "Thou

jcgadfly wrote:

 "Thou shalt not kill/murder except when (include plethora of cases including "God tells me to" and "I feel like it&quotEye-wink",  eh?

 You're correct. Most Christians do believe that. They're showing themselves to be as moral as their God.

 That should scare everyone.

Do the words extenuating circumstances exist in your vocabulary?


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Do the words extenuating

Do the words extenuating circumstances exist in your vocabulary?

Do you intentionally avoid questions, or do you just not understand that your answers don't address them?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
smparker21

smparker21 wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:
OK, you have proven yourself irrational. Goodbye. You have shown yourself as a nutcase.

Uh huh.  By whose standards again?  Oh yeah, the ones who are capable of understanding everything in the universe.

Gotcha.

 

By the standards of anyone with any fraction of a clue!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
smparker21 wrote: jcgadfly

smparker21 wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

"Thou shalt not kill/murder except when (include plethora of cases including "God tells me to" and "I feel like it&quotEye-wink", eh?

You're correct. Most Christians do believe that. They're showing themselves to be as moral as their God.

That should scare everyone.

Do the words extenuating circumstances exist in your vocabulary?

 

Now I'm reasonably sure you don't know what you're talking about. 

Extenuating circumstances reduce punishment for crime.

 Your God doesn't give an exception for aggravting circumstances in his commandment, why should you be allowed to?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


SNDS
Posts: 1
Joined: 2006-12-30
User is offlineOffline
It's not about dying...

...it's about the hypocrisy that surrounds Christianity with the 10 commandments. The 6th Commandment states that you shall not murder, correct? Killing ANYBODY, despite the reasons you surround it or buffer yourself with is murder. God is a -floating- contradiction. Murder is defined by the premeditated killing of any person, despite whether or not they have done something to you. Dying isn't necessarily a bad thing as you state, but its the action of murder that is unlawful, even by God's own statement. And then he tells his followers to kill entire nations, or kill those that don't follow him, which is still murder. Get your facts straight.


vaeneir
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
I'm going to throw in a

I'm going to throw in a random two-bits here.  I don't know if this has been said before, but nevertheless, here it is:

 Hypothetically, God = Good, Satan = Bad.  Heaven = Pleasure, Hell = Pain.  Good people go to Heaven and are happy, Bad people go to Hell and suffer.  That has been established in most peoples minds.  This is where I lose track of things.

 It seems fairly reasonable, provided religious scripture is accurate, that good behaviour would be rewarded by God in Heaven after life.  Bad behaviour, however, is the Devil's Work and is punished in Hell by the Devil himself.  Come again?  If you've been doing the Devil's Work your whole life, and die and wind up in Hell, why would he punish you for it?  If anything, he'd probably give you a thumbs-up and a pat on the back before tossing you a bag of weed (or whatever floats your boat; not my thing anymore, but if it's hot there it'd be easy to find a light) and directing you to the orgy behind door number 2.  Any thoughts on this?

 Second point:  Not sure where, but supposedly in religious doctrine it is stated that if you are killed by another person, you do not pass Purgatory, go directly to Heaven.  So if you go to war in God's name and are killed, your slate of sins is swept clean and you go merrily on to eternal bliss.  If this is true, didn't Saddam just hop on the Express Bus to the Pearly Gates?

 P.S. Hi everybody.  I'm new here.  Laughing out loud

It is better to live on one's feet than to die on one's knees.


vaeneir
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
 Sorry for the

 Sorry for the double-post, I couldn't let this slide.

s0m3b0dy wrote:
MattShizzle wrote:

YOU did not give life to your children. God simply used your body to make creating new life simpler, such as he did from adam to create eve.

 

I'm sorry, an omnipotent, omniscient, all-powerful being of "CREATION" needed to make things "simpler"? Jawdropping! He could fart and change the face of existence, but he couldn't make another fleshy speck of dust without pulling the first one's rib out?  And you claim our arguments are unfounded...  

It is better to live on one's feet than to die on one's knees.


TheologyOfTheBody
Theist
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
errancy?

I don't understand the point of this post. The bible is errant in saying that God killed people? Or the bible is errant in that people like to say say He is all merciful, but really he is a dasterdly murderer?

God has "killed" every person who has ever lived by giving them free will. Even more than that is that he caused death by giving angels free will, hence the pride of Lucifer and the downfall of the angels. You no doubt noticed the quotations i placed around killed earlier, I did this because although it can ultimately be traced back to God, using Biblical reasoning, that is only because God created everything that exists, and he created it all as very good.

Man was happy and without troubles, without pain until the deceiver deceived Eve and Adam into acting against God, attempting to put themselves on an even par with Him. After this transgression, man fell from God's favor and was thus without his Grace. There is the rub, it was not until man distanced himself from God that suffering and death and evil entered the world. The light of God's grace was dimmed so that in the darkest places where he was absent evil flourished (Yes, God is supposed to be omnipresnt and omnipotent, but because of free will one can deny him, like you are doing and therefore his influence is weak and the devil can then dissemble things and trick mankind)

Well there's my two cents worth.

 

google my name


carpetfeller
Posts: 10
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
What are you trying to say

What are you trying to say here?  Lets not forget that the numbers killed in the great flood, soddom & gamorah, and the first born egyptians were left out of the total.  Anyway, I don't think the subject was God vs. Hitler.


Tomcat
Posts: 346
Joined: 2006-10-24
User is offlineOffline
The Holocaust?  Yea, I've

The Holocaust?  Yea, I've heard of it.  My grandfather's brother has his Auchwitz I.D. number tatooed into his arm.

By your sarcasm, I assume you are implying that we are being ignorant by overlooking what you believe to be a horrible attrocity committed by atheists.

But as an atheist, I strive to be reasonable, whereas the Nazi's didn't really do so.  They were a political religion, with their own dogma and heards of lemmings following out of fear.

God claims to be anything and everything that is good, and that killcount on the front page simply points out that that is just not so.  We never claimed here that humanity is free of mistakes and atrocities in the past.  You wrongfully place Hitler as a peer among us.  In fact, he was an irrational psycho and no hero of mine. 

The Enlightenment wounded the beast, but the killing blow has yet to land...


Ziggyzaz
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
In response to the "Biblical Death List" on the front page

I just really have one thing to say about the 2,270,365+ people that were killed in the name of God. Has anybody in this organization ever heard of something called the Holocaust? I was just wondering because that number is in the 6,000,000+ bracket. Just wanted to bring this up in case you havn't thought about it yet.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Ziggyzaz wrote: I just

Ziggyzaz wrote:
I just really have one thing to say about the 2,270,365+ people that were killed in the name of God. Has anybody in this organization ever heard of something called the Holocaust? I was just wondering because that number is in the 6,000,000+ bracket. Just wanted to bring this up in case you havn't thought about it yet.

 

When I merged your post into this thread the two responses to you got placed out of order.

 

Anyway, what's your point?  The holocaust wasn't committed in the name of non religion.  Not only are the killings in the buy-bull committed in the name of religion, they're committed by the God character himself.  A supposedly loving being that creates humans knowing ahead of time exactly what they would do, knowing he would desire to murder them later.  The God of the bible is the sickest and most vindictive cruel character in all of fiction.

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Ziggyzaz wrote: I just

Ziggyzaz wrote:
I just really have one thing to say about the 2,270,365+ people that were killed in the name of God. Has anybody in this organization ever heard of something called the Holocaust? I was just wondering because that number is in the 6,000,000+ bracket. Just wanted to bring this up in case you havn't thought about it yet.

 Are you suggesting we add these numbers to the list we already have in the name of God?  Because, you're aware that these murders were committed by a Christian right?  And that Catholics had their own extermination camps for Jews?  Just curious.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13659
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
GlamourKat wrote: And heck,

GlamourKat wrote:
And heck, that's JUST in scripture. If god was real, TECHNICALLY he's killed every person that EVER lived, and I can't even think of the mindbogglingly huge numbers on that!

Right!

You always hear that "God has his reasons"

So logic stands to reason that IF

Mind you to the believers reading this. I am only adressing the standpoint of the common claim comming from the believer.

If god manipulates everything then every death is determined by his maniplation.

If god "sits it out" and lets it happen, what does that say about his morals?

I have never undertood how a victim of pediophilia and murder is allowed while other perpitrators get caught. If one is looking for the optimal position that all should be protected how can an "all powerfull" being even allow such a horrible event to happen at all?

AGAIN, that is not from the view that I believe in a bearded man in the sky. It is from the postion that the believer says "X is true".

IF anyone reading this were to take over that "ultimate and infinte position" would any Muslim, Jew, Christian or atheist allow a child to be harmed like that? I hope not.

So why the inconsistancies in the infallable money back garuntee of "protection".

If one says, "Dont worry, that wont happen on my watch"

THEN WHY DOES IT HAPPEN?

Because believers in supernatural never consider that there is no superanatural. As well intended as human beings are,insted of studying things that harm us in a natural way to prevent them, they insist on magicall puppet masters which blinds them to natural reasons that could prevent harm to the most. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


TheologyOfTheBody
Theist
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Free Will

It is because the love of said Creator was so great that he did not wish to have automatons to worship him, rather people who could freely choose whether to love and serve him or to deny him.

And really if one dies in a state of grace, then it really isn't so bad, since eternal paradise with God is far better than this earth, that is if you believe in such things.

The pedophile or murderer is devoid of any of God's grace at the moment he commits his heinous crime, he says no to the good that is God.

Humans have free will, they can say yes to the will of God or they can sau no. It is their free choice to do so. It is only by saying yes to this will that one can eventually return to God for eternal paradise in the pure love that is God. Meanwhile the ones who say no ,which is everyone (baring Jesus and Mary)who ever lived, at one time or another as humans are not perfect. After these falls men can either persist in their ways or ask forgiveness and return to God's grace. I think that the murders and 'evil' people are simply people who have become more susceptible to temptaions and their human-ness and its inherent ability do evil, and become tools to subvert the goodness of God.

People who die are poor evidence for a God who does not exist. God did not create people to live forever. He created them to live on the earth for a time and then eventually return to heaven with him.

People who deny the existence of God are embracing only oone side of the human person.

So nazism was not human or rational, it was a political religion. By this reasoning, nazism was what its followers believed fervently as the way to live and therefore a religion. Is not what you are making Rationality out to be, the end all and be all of human kind making it into its own religion. You worship man, instead of the supernatural. Something about that just seems disordered to me.

" We say believing in the paranormal is irrational until proof exists." Of course it does. No proof in the normal realm will ever exist for events classified as paranormal. If it isn't normal how can there be normal evidence, the only evidence is the fact that it cannot be explained by normal means and is therefore paranormal but that will just cycle, so that million dollars is safe in a lovely little word circle.

Sorry for my eclectic posts, I'm not very well versed in online ettiquette (i don't even think i can spell it). But this is just general reponse to stuff. I reckon i'll get to the specific eventually.

 

google my name


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Is not what you are

Quote:
Is not what you are making Rationality out to be, the end all and be all of human kind making it into its own religion.

No.  Religion requires belief in something without proof.  Reason is the search for truth, and demands no worship, no church, no particular code of conduct.  Reason is simply the rational way to interpret what we experience.  What we do with reason is our own business.  There is no end goal.

 

Quote:
People who die are poor evidence for a God who does not exist.

 You miss the point.  People who die at the hand of, or by the command of a deity are a good argument for the evil nature of the diety if he were to exist.

 

Quote:
Humans have free will,

Impossible if god is omniscient.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Ziggyzaz
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins

Brian you got it handed to you by Laura Ingraham yesterday


Ziggyzaz
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
  

 Are you suggesting we add these numbers to the list we already have in the name of God?  Because, you're aware that these murders were committed by a Christian right?  And that Catholics had their own extermination camps for Jews?  Just curious.

 

I've never heard of Catholic extremination camps, if you could direct me to some documentation of them I would greatly apprciate it.

 

In response to the obsurd notion that Christions were responsible for the holocaust.  Who are you talking about?  Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Ziggyzaz wrote: Brian you

Ziggyzaz wrote:
Brian you got it handed to you by Laura Ingraham yesterday

I suppose, Ziggyzaz, taht you missed the part where she didn't even allow him to respond to many of her questions.

If you listen to freethinkers' shows, like the RRS, infidelguy, etc, you'll notice that they at least allow the other side to answer the questions and make their points.

How oten to people like Laura, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc do the same for those they disagree with?

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Ziggyzaz
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
For someone that believes

For someone that believes that God doesn't exist he sure spends a lot of time telling everyone else what God is doing wrong...for someone that doesn't exist.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Ziggyzaz wrote:

Ziggyzaz wrote:
For someone that believes that God doesn't exist he sure spends a lot of time telling everyone else what God is doing wrong...for someone that doesn't exist.

The point in doing this is for several reasons. I'll elucidate a few.

For one, the idea is to show that if the God existed, it would be a bastard and a poor standard for morality.

Another point woud be to show that the Bible, held to be a source for ethics, is in fact not a good source for ethics. It is, in fact, not our source for ethics at all. 

It is a demonstration of one troubling set of facts that causes people to be concerned with the popularity of religion. Most religious people don't really know much about the sources of their beliefs. If they did, this is the kind of crap they would find. When we are faced with these facts of the Bible, we are forced to justify them, rationalize them, or simply throw them aside as horrific stories.

We've thrown them aside as stories.  People who view them as true, the source of morals, or from God paint a very disturing picture of faith and of religion.  If this is the word of God, and God does exist, then we're being judged by an unjust bastard.  Any decent person is seriously fucked.

And if what you believe does not fit with these types of actions listed above, on what basis--what criteria--do you separate the wheat from the chaff? How do you distinguish what is true or good in the text and what is not. Because if you are using a criteria or standard outside of the text itself to judge the text, then the text is not the source.

And if it is claimed (not that you have said so, but it is said often) that the source of this ability to judge is God, the Holy Spirit, etc, then you are arguing in circles because the only source for that idea is in the book you are using this external power to judge.  That's circular reasoning.

The point, in short, is that one does not have to believe a character in a book is real to think he's an asshole.

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


zoonooz
zoonooz's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote: For

ShaunPhilly wrote:

For one, the idea is to show that if the God existed, it would be a bastard and a poor standard for morality.

Another point woud be to show that the Bible, held to be a source for ethics, is in fact not a good source for ethics. It is, in fact, not our source for ethics at all. 

What should be our source for ethics?

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake - Chuck Palahniuk"


Ziggyzaz
Posts: 22
Joined: 2007-01-03
User is offlineOffline
<qoute>The point, in short,

<qoute>The point, in short, is that one does not have to believe a character in a book is real to think he's an asshole. </qoute>

That doesn't make any sense.  How can you believe something "about" somebody, while at the same time not even believe that person exists.  It's like saying Santa is skinny.  But Santa isn't real.  How can onething be something and at the same time not be anything?

<quote>Another point woud be to show that the Bible, held to be a source for ethics, is in fact not a good source for ethics. It is, in fact, not our source for ethics at all. </quote>

Not a source for ethics?  Are you saying that it's alright to kill rape and steal?  Cause if so then hell yeah I'll sign up for this mess that you all believe in.  But at the same time, if treating others  like you want to be treated and helping out the poor and homeless is wrong, maybe you all are messed up in the head.  How can anyone discount the fact that Jesus went around healing the sick, causeing the blind to see, and feeding thousands of people.  But if you say it's ok to fuck over everyone else in the world for your self......

<qoute?And if it is claimed (not that you have said so, but it is said often) that the source of this ability to judge is God, the Holy Spirit, etc, then you are arguing in circles because the only source for that idea is in the book you are using this external power to judge.  That's circular reasoning. </qoute>

Why would God be the one to judge what is true?   As the Bilbe being his word.  But as you said believing that the Bible is Gods word just becuase it says so is circular reasoning.  But that brings us back to the whole point of the Bible, FAITH.  If you've actually ever read the Bible for what it is, not to pick apart things you feel are wrong with it, you'll understand the true meanings behind the Bilble. 


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
zoonooz wrote: ShaunPhilly

zoonooz wrote:
ShaunPhilly wrote:

For one, the idea is to show that if the God existed, it would be a bastard and a poor standard for morality.

Another point woud be to show that the Bible, held to be a source for ethics, is in fact not a good source for ethics. It is, in fact, not our source for ethics at all.

What should be our source for ethics?

 Are you familiar with the Euthyphro problem? You should really read not only the linked article, but Plato's Euhyphro.

 But that will not answer your question (it's just an important related matter).

I think that we don't need to point to a source of morality.  I think that evolutionary history has given us a moral faculty that is a good start.  But if we want to discuss metaethics, I'd say that we should start with freedom and responsibilty.

The implications of recognizing that I have free will, you have free will, and that perhaps if I'm going to value my own free will, I have to value yours unless I can demonstrate that my will somehow automatially trumps yours. 

Therefore, given that my free will to act cannot be shown to be necessarily (although perhaps conditionally) more valid, I cannot act in any way taht violates your will.

 The only acception to the rule would be to act agisnt another's will if their will involves hurting others.  In other words, once you have violated the will of another, you've violated the code and you therefore nullify your right not to be violated (at least to the extent of your transgression).

 There is more to it, but this is a start.

Shaun 

 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Ziggyzaz wrote: That

Ziggyzaz wrote:

That doesn't make any sense. How can you believe something "about" somebody, while at the same time not even believe that person exists. It's like saying Santa is skinny. But Santa isn't real. How can onething be something and at the same time not be anything?

So, was old man Karamavov a nice fellow? I know he wasn't real, but was the character nice? If you haven't read that one, then was Hercules strong?

The person is not real, but you can still describe and evaluate the character as written. 

Quote:
Not a source for ethics? Are you saying that it's alright to kill rape and steal? Cause if so then hell yeah I'll sign up for this mess that you all believe in. But at the same time, if treating others like you want to be treated and helping out the poor and homeless is wrong, maybe you all are messed up in the head. How can anyone discount the fact that Jesus went around healing the sick, causeing the blind to see, and feeding thousands of people. But if you say it's ok to fuck over everyone else in the world for your self......

Um, no.

I'm saying that if the Bible says those things and immoral things, then it is not the Bible that is the source, but your own ability to recognize which is moral and which is not which is the source.

The fact that the Bible says some things that are good does not mean the Bible is the source, or that God is the source.   

Quote:
Why would God be the one to judge what is true? As the Bilbe being his word. But as you said believing that the Bible is Gods word just becuase it says so is circular reasoning. But that brings us back to the whole point of the Bible, FAITH. If you've actually ever read the Bible for what it is, not to pick apart things you feel are wrong with it, you'll understand the true meanings behind the Bilble.

You mean that if I read it assuming that it's the word of God, I'll find that it's the word of God. Come on now, give me a break.

Perhaps if you read it not assuming that it was the word of God, you might see it differently, like I did when I read it--cover to cover, annotated and everything--twice.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Ziggyzaz wrote: I've never

Ziggyzaz wrote:
I've never heard of Catholic extremination camps, if you could direct me to some documentation of them I would greatly apprciate it.

In response to the obsurd notion that Christions were responsible for the holocaust.  Who are you talking about?  Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust.

 Both will be detailed below.  Not absurd, as that the Third Reiche was a Christian ideology.  Perhaps you didn't know?

One of the greatest illusions held by those rejecting Hitler is that he was a godless heathen.  Few assertions are more at variance with reality and one need only read and quote his writings and speeches to prove as much.  Regarding belief in God he said to the English journalist, Ward Price:

    I believe in God, and I am convinced that he will not desert 67 million Germans who have worked so hard to regain their rightful position in the world.
        HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 29

 

        In a speech in Munich on 24 February 1940 he stated:

But there is something else I believe, and that is that there is a God.  This God has given the same right to all nations.  And this God again has blessed our efforts during the past 13 years.
        MY NEW ORDER  by Adolph Hitler, Edited by de Sales, 1941, page 788

 

        At the celebration of the Gau Party Congress of Mainfranken on 27 June 1937: 

We German National Socialists believe in nothing on this earth--besides our Lord God in heaven--except our German Volk.
        HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 908

 

        Near Augsburg on 23 November 1937 Hitler addressed the Churches formally:

 At the bottom of our hearts, we National Socialists are religious.  For the space of many millenniums, a uniform concept of God did not exist. Yet it is the most brilliant and most sublime notion of mankind, that which distinguishes him from most from animals, that he not only views a phenomenon from without, but always poses the question of why and how.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 980

 

          He also stated:

          It is impossible to escape the problem of God.  When I have the time, I'll work out the formula to be used on great occasions.  We must have something perfect both in thought and in form.
          HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 164

 

         It's a fact that we're feeble creatures, and that a creative force exists.  To seek to deny it is folly.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 87

 

      In his speech in the Reichstag on 7 March 1936:

         I believe I can say this openly before my conscience and my God.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1301

 

       Near Augsburg on 23 November 1937 Hitler addressed the Churches:

         This entire world, a world so clear-cut in its external manifestation, is just as unclear to us in its purpose.  And here mankind has bowed down in humility before the conviction that it is confronted by an incredible power, an Omnipotence, which is so incredible and so deep that we men are unable to fathom it.  That is a good thing!  For it can serve to comfort people in bad times; it avoids that superficiality and sense of superiority that misleads man to believe that he--but a tiny bacillus on this earth, in this universe--rules the world, and that he lays down the laws of Nature which he can at best but study.  It is, therefore, our desire that our Volk remains humble and truly believes in a God.  Hence an immeasurably large scope is given for the Churches, and thus they should be tolerant of one another!
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 980

Hitler not only said he believed in a God but specifically rejected atheism.

        In an article published in the Sunday Express 28 September 1930 he said: 
        

It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist.  Both charges are false.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 93

 

    An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable.  An educated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)....
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 59

 

 

Not only did he strongly believe in god and reject atheism but his determination to destroy atheism was unmistakable.  In a speech in the Sportpalast in Berlin on 24 October 1933 Hitler said:

          Without pledging ourselves to any particular Confession [Protestantism or Catholicism], we have restored to faith its prerequisites because we were convinced that the people need and require this faith.  We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 378

         We don’t want to educate anyone in atheism.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 6

 

   In a speech to the Nation on 14 October 1933:

         For eight months we have been conducting a fearless campaign against that Communism which is threatening our entire nation, our culture, our art, and our public morals.  We have made an end of denials of the Deity and the crying down of religion.  We must humbly thank God that he has not permitted our fight against distress and unemployment, and for the saving of the German peasantry, to be in vain.
         THE HITLER DECREES, by James Pollock and Harlow Heneman, 1934, Page 80
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 369
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1095

 

 

 The allegedly atheist Hitler called upon God for support.  In Munich on 1 January 1938 he stated:

         No matter how great the accomplishments of mankind may be, man will never be able to boast of having achieved final victory if Providence does not bless his actions.  May it be our uttermost request that the mercy of the Lord God accompany our German Volk in the coming year on its fateful path.
        HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 997

 

 

And he prayed on numerous occasions.  In Berlin on 20 February 1938 Hitler stated:

         In this hour I pray that the Almighty will give His blessing in the years to come to our work and action, to our judgment and to our strength of resolution, that He may guard us from false pride as from cowardly submission, that He will let us find the right way, which He in His Providence has allotted to the German people, and that He give us always the courage to do right and never to waiver or weaken in the face of any force or danger.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 92

 

 

         In Cologne on 28 March 1936: 

         Once the mercy of God shown upon us, but we were not worthy of His mercy.  Providence withdrew its protection and our people fell, fell as scarcely any other people heretofore.  In this deep misery we again learned to pray....  This people has become better, more respectable, and nobler.  We all perceive it; the mercy of the Lord slowly returns to us again.  And in this hour we sink to our knees and beseech our Almighty God that He may bless us, that He may give us the strength to carry on the struggle for the freedom, the future, the honor, and the peace of our people.  So help us God.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 91
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 802

 

 

 In a speech at the Harvest Thanksgiving Celebration on the Buckeberg on 7 October 1933: 

         And of our God at this hour we would humbly pray that in the future, too, He would give His blessing upon our labor for our daily bread.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 874

 

 

         In his speech to members of the Party at the Nuremberg Parteitag on 13 September 1936: 

    Never in these long years have we offered any other prayer but this: Lord, grant to our people peace at home, and grant and preserve to them peace from the foreign foe!  We in our generation have lived through so much fighting that it is natural that we should long for peace.  We wish to work, we wish to mould our Reich, to organize it after our own fashion, not after that of the Bolshevist Jews!
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 207

 

 

  In a speech at Konigsberg on 4 March 1933: 

         Our prayer is: Lord God, let us never hesitate, let us never play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 116

 

 

     In Berlin on 30 January 1942: 

         It is this prayer which will be answered: God give us strength that we may maintain our freedom for our people, for our children and for our children's children, not only for us Germans, but also for the other nations of Europe!
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 97

 

 

         In his speech on May Day 1933: 

     ... no, Lord, the German people have become strong again in spirit, strong in will, strong in endurance, strong to bear all sacrifices.
     Lord, we will not let Thee go: bless now our fight for our freedom; the fight we wage for our German people and Fatherland.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 410

 

 

         In the closure to his speech in the Reichstag on 20 February 1938: 

         In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His  blessing to our work and our action, to our judgment and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant to us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 410
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 1034

 

 

         In his speech at the Harvest Thanksgiving on 6 October 1935: 

         We wish to continue to do our duty, to go straight ahead, not to look to the right and left as we have done in the past.  We want to march through the distresses of this time, strong and armed, and never play the weakling.  We want to do the right and to dread no one and then we would ask of the Almighty that in the coming year, too, He will bless our work, that He may once more give a rich harvest to our fields and to us all great successes.  And in especial may He preserve to our people a right judgment, may He secure for our people domestic peace, and may He fill us one and all with the wisdom and the wit to do the right that our people may live and that Germany and may never perish.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1716

 

 

         In his speech at the Harvest Thanksgiving on 6 October 1935: 

      When we go into the last battle we would lift of our gaze to Him who guides all things and, as did a Prussian general before us, we would only say 'Lord God, there is no need for Thee to help us, only do not help our enemies.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1748
         HITLER'S REDEN, 1933, page 95.

 

 

In a speech at Frankfurt on Main on 16 March 1936:

... You must be anchored in yourself and must set yourself with feet firmly planted on this oscillating world.  Only so can you appeal to your God and pray Him to support and bless your courage, your work, your perseverance, your strength, your resolution, and with all these your claim on life.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 408

 

 

       On 3 October 1938 in Eger: 

         In this hour we wish to render thanks to the Almighty that He has guarded us on our path in the past, and we would implore Him that in the future, too, He would go with us and prosper our way.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1529

 

 

Needless to say, those having no belief in a supreme being--atheists--don’t pray or call upon an Almighty Being for sustenance or assistance. 

         Hitler also contended that prayers are answered for those who fight for them as is shown by his comments in a Munich speech on 27 September 1922:

 

         . . . Necessity teaches us to pray, but it also teaches us to fight.  God gave man prayer, but He refuses to grant the fulfillment of prayer if man does not fight for it.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 76

 

Assertions such as those uttered by Hitler during a public speech on 8 November 1943 lend credence to his claim of being religious: 

         I, too, am religious; that is, religious deep inside, and I believe that Providence weighs us human beings, and that he who is unable to pass the test of Providence but is destroyed by it has not been destined for greater things.
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 29

 

 

 The following exchange occurred in a conversation with one of Hitler’s closest confidants, Martin Bormann: 

HITLER:  Mark my words, Bormann, I'm going to become very religious.
    BORMANN: You've always been very religious.
    HITLER:  I'm going to become a religious figure.  Soon I'll be the great chief of the Tartars.  Already  Arabs and Moroccans are mingling my name with their prayers.
     HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 203

 

 In his speech to the Reichstag on 21 May 1935 he said: 

         ... We National Socialists may perhaps not have the same views as our church communities in respect to this or that question of organization.  But we never want to see a lack of religion and faith and do not want our churches turned into clubrooms and cinemas.
 Bolshevism teaches godlessness and acts accordingly.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 670

 

 

      With Hitler, as with George Bush, faith is a key component of his life and the Fuhrer affirmed his reliance upon same by saying in his closing speech at the Parteitag in Nuremberg in September 1936: 

         . . .  Woe to him who has not faith: he sins against the meaning of the whole of life....  It was the miracle of faith which saved Germany.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 406

 

 

         Hitler went even further than Bush dares to venture at this time by openly contending faith should be imposed on others by force if necessary: 

         Those who don't believe should, it seems, have faith imposed on them by force.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 342

 

 

What an imposition of this kind would portend for the US is distressful to say the least. 

         As far as Hitler is concerned anything bringing people to god is good and all to the contrary is wrong, and he makes no effort to hide this attitude:

Let's not worry about letting young people have these festivals.  On the contrary!  Everything is good that brings them closer to the godhead, and everything is wrong that comes between them and the godhead, even if it is a Catholic priest.
         HITLER--MEMOIRS OF A CONFIDANT, by Otto Wegener, 1985, page 278

 

         In Munich on 8 May 1929 Hitler showed he felt people could be saved by virtually any religion when he said:
         I represent the view that everyone should achieve salvation according to his own religion.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 280

         He doesn’t seem to care what religion people adopt as long as they belong to one or the other.  To that extent he is more tolerant than Bush and his fundamentalist compatriots who contend there is only one correct path to salvation.
         Hitler often showed he believed, like Bush, that people were a God’s creation.
        In Berlin on 1 May 1935 he stated:
         As you stand here gathered together before me, may you one and all not forget what life has made out of you as individuals; may you remember that in spite of all these barriers you are members of one people and that you are so not by human will but by God's will.  It was He who made us members of this nation, He who gave us our mother tongue, He who implanted in us that being with which we are filled, which we must obey if we are to be more on earth than mere worthless chaff.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 90

         Because God's will once gave men their form, their being, and their faculties.  Who destroys His work thereby declares war on the creation of the Lord, the divine will.
         MEIN KAMPF, Adolph Hitler, New York, Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939, page 827

         In Munich on 25 October 1930:
         When we come forth today as Germans and try to guard against infection by another people, then we attempt to put back into the hand of the all-powerful Creator that which He has given us.
     His will and His Providence let us become what we are.  He gave us the blood that we possess; He gave us our external, I might almost say purely human appearance; He placed our souls in us and He gave us the value which is ours and also the substance of life.  It would be an act of infidelity toward the Creator if we did not endeavor to give the same being back to Him in the same form in which He gave it to us.  I consider it a sin to corrupt or to debase this our being, to infect it with foreign characteristics, and thus not to preserve the image of God as He placed it in our inner nature.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 87

         If those words do not expose someone ideologically in league with the religious views of Bush what does.
 Hitler went so far as to equate the people’s voice with God’s voice when he said in Munich on 15 March 1936:
         Only the Almighty has the right to decide on what is just in what is not, and God's voice is the people's voice, and you, my German compatriots, are therefore the only ones who have the right to judge my actions.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1309

         And he reiterated those words the following day in Frankfurt:
         I will accept your decision as the people's voice which is the voice of God.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1311

         Like religious fundamentalists in general and Bush in particular Hitler links salvation with understanding God and accepting the laws of nature:
         The essential thing, really, is that man should know that salvation consists in the effort that each person makes to understand Providence and accept the laws of nature.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 124

         When Hitler speaks as follows, it is readily apparent that his anti-evolutionary views coalesce with those of Bush and other fundamentalists:
         I cannot believe that the various ages in the history of the globe lasted as long as the experts would have us believe.  In any case, they have no proofs to offer of the correctness of their hypotheses.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 707

         In the following comment Hitler describes the clash in his mind between evolution and creation and judging by the prior comment one can easily see which side he chose to accept:
         The present system of teaching in schools permits the following absurdity: at 10 a.m. the pupils attend a lesson in the catechism, at which the creation of the world is presented to them in accordance with the teachings of the Bible; and at 11 a.m. they attend a lesson in natural science, at which they are taught the theory of evolution.  Yet the two doctrines are in complete contradiction.  As a child, I suffered from this contradiction, and ran my head against a wall.  Often I complained to one or another of my teachers against what I had been taught an hour before--and I remember that I drove them to despair.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 83

         Judging from the following comment it would appear Hitler feels the creation account is valid because of its acceptance by all human traditions:
         In all the human traditions, whether oral or written, one finds mention of a huge cosmic disaster.  What the Bible tells on the subject is not peculiar to the Jews, but was certainly borrowed by them from the Babylonians and the Assyrians.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 249

         Hitler not only firmly believed in God but according to some of his assertions strongly believed he was chosen by God to rule.  He stated in a Munich speech on 4 September 1932:
         I also have the conviction and the certain feeling that nothing can happen to me, for I know that Providence has chosen me to fulfill my task.
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 165

         In Berlin on 24 March 1936:
         I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 797

         In a speech to some political leaders at the Nuremberg Parteitag on 7 September 1934:
         And it was no earthly superior who gave us that command; that was given to us by the God Who created our people and Who cannot will that His work should go to ruin only because a single generation had grown feeble.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 662

         And in a Reichstag speech on 21 May 1935:
         But the more difficult the decisions, so much the more I as a German should like to make sure that my actions are completely uninfluenced by instincts of weakness or fear and to bring them into harmony with my conscience towards my God and the nation which He permits me to serve.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 457

         Besides contending God chose him to rule, he attributed his accomplishments to God’s help.  In effect, mankind is supposed to believe God was on the side of him and Germany.  That should sound familiar to millions of present-day Americans listening to Bushites express their views, especially when the latter are speaking in uniform before congregations.
        In Regensburg on 6 June 1937 Hitler stated:
         We, therefore, go our way into the future with the deepest belief in God.  Would all we have achieved been possible had Providence not helped us?  I know that the fruits of human labor are hard-won and transitory if they are not blessed by the Omnipotent.  Work such as ours which has received the blessings of the Omnipotent can never again be undone by mere mortals.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 903

         On 6 April 1938 in Salzburg:
 We all must be grateful to Providence and to our Lord God.  He has granted to us success in that for which formerly generations fought and for which countless numbers of the best Germans had to sacrifice their lives.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1455

         Before the Reichstag on 30 January 1937:
         When I look back upon the great work of the four years lying behind us, you will understand that my initial feeling can be none other than that of gratitude to our Almighty God who allowed us to accomplish this work.
 He blessed our work and enabled our Volk to stride unscathed and confident through all the perils lining its path.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 873
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 92

         In Saarbruecken on 1 March 1935:
         I know, too, that our goal is today far from being attained.  But we strive toward it with burning hearts, and Heaven and Providence have blessed our efforts....
     Fifteen years of struggle.  And when today I here consider the result, then I must thank God above; he has blessed our efforts time and again.  Nor was our struggle in vain.  Fifteen years of battle for a Reich, and today in the name of this people and in the name of this Reich I can greet you in the German homeland.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 89

         In Berlin on May Day, 1934:
         We would not forget Him Who a whole year through has granted such success to our work, and we would pray Him that in the time to come, too, He would not withhold His blessing from our people.  Above all may Providence permit our dearest hope to come to its fulfillment....
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1176

         At Rosenheim on 11 August 1935:
         Fifteen years ago I had nothing save my faith and my will.  Today the Movement is Germany, today this Movement has won the German nation and formed the Reich.  Would that have been possible without the blessing of the Almighty?  Or do they who ruined Germany wish to maintain that they have had God's blessing?  What we are we are, not against but with the will of Providence.  And so long as we are loyal, honest, and ready to fight, so long as we believe in our great work and do not capitulate, we shall also in the future have the blessing of Providence. . . .
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 404

         In his proclamation to the German People on 1 January 1939:
         The National Socialist Movement has wrought this miracle.  If Almighty God granted success to this work, then the Party was His instrument.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 406

         In his New Year Proclamation of 1938:
         Yet however great human achievement may be, it will never be able to pride itself upon final success unless Providence blesses its action.  Our deepest prayer is that in the coming year, as in the past, the favor of Almighty God may accompany our German people upon the path of its destiny.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1373

         In a speech to the "Old Guard" of the Party in Munich on 19 March 1934:
         ... We have experienced a miracle, something unique, something the like of which there has hardly been in the history of the world.  God first allowed our people to be victorious for 4 and a half years, then He abased us, laid upon us a period of shamelessness, but now after a struggle of 14 years he has permitted us to bring that period to a close.  It is a miracle which has been wrought upon the German people, and we would not fall into the fault which possessed the German people at the end of the war-years: we would not be ungrateful.  What has come to pass during the last year is so unheard of that it must constrain us to profound humility.  It shows that the Almighty has not deserted our people, that He received it into favor at the moment when it rediscovered itself.  And that our people shall never again lose itself, that must be our vow so long as we shall live and so long as the Lord gives us the strength to carry on the fight.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 405

         And at the annual harvest celebration on the Buckeberg, on 30 September 1934:
         When folk have set before them a true purpose and then pursue it unmoved with bravery and courage, when they withstand with a strong heart every trial which Heaven sends upon them, then one day at the last almighty Providence will yet grant them the fruits of their struggle and of their sacrifices.  For God has never abandoned any man upon this earth unless he has first abandoned himself.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 906

         Based upon these comments, it is not hard to discern why Hitler felt the German people were God’s agent and said:
         Germany, the German Volk!  And this Volk will be the Sword of God!
         HITLER--MEMOIRS OF A CONFIDANT, by Otto Wegener, 1985, page 215

         But although he staunchly believed God was in the corner occupied by him and the German people, there was no doubt in his mind that God’s support could not substitute for hard work and extended labor.  On many occasions he emphasized the importance of work and sacrifice.  The “bring yourself up by your own bootstraps” cry so prominent in Rightist circles clearly emerges in such comments as:
         You [blue-collar workers] represent the most noble of slogans known to us: "God helps those who help themselves!"
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 1147

         In Munich on 24 February 1941:
         The Lord helps those who help themselves....  That is not only a very pious phrase, but a very just one.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 96

         In Hamburg on 20 March 1936:
         Hence today, my German volk, I call upon you: stand behind me with your faith!  Be the source of my power and my faith. Do not forget: he who does not abandon his principles in this world will not be abandoned by the Almighty either!  The Almighty will always help those who help themselves; He will always show them the way to their rights, their freedom and thus to their future.  And this is the reason why you, German Volk, are going to the polls on March 29.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 794

         In a speech on 5 July 1944:
         I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.
         HITLER'S LETTERS AND NOTES, by Werner Maser, (1973), page 208

         In a March 1933 speech:
         The world will not help, the people must help itself.  Its own strength is the source of life.  That strength the Almighty has given us to use: that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life....  The others in past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty--of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision.  Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 409

         In Nuremberg on 16 September 1935:
         God continues to bestow His Grace only on him who continues to merit it.  But whoever speaks and acts in the name of a people, which is a part of God's handiwork, will continue to discharge his mandate only so long as he does not sin against the existence or future of the part of God's creation that has been entrusted to his care....
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 90

         At the annual harvest celebration on the Buckeberg in October 1936:
         If at any time in Germany the harvest sinks only by 20 percent, then that is for our people a catastrophe.  Twenty percent less grain would for our German food supply have terrible, hardly imaginable, consequences.  What men can do to avoid such a catastrophe that we do in Germany.  But we feel all the more deeply our duty every year to render thanks to the Power on which depends in the last resort this final 20 percent of our harvest.  We know that Eternal Providence must first give its gracious consent to all that human industry and human work can achieve.  And it is for this reason that we unite here on this day to render thanks to the Almighty that He has not allowed the work of a whole year to be spent in vain, but that from the work of this year once more our people's daily bread is secured for the coming year.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 932

         At the celebration of the Gau Party Congress of Mainfranken on 27 June 1937:
         ... it is my conviction that the human beings God created also wish to lead their lives modeled after the will of the Almighty.
         God did not create the peoples so that they might deliver themselves up to foolishness and be pulped soft and ruined by it, but that they might preserve themselves as He created them!  Because we support their preservation in their original, God-given form, we believe our actions correspond to the will of the Almighty.
         As weak as the individual may ultimately be in his character and actions as a whole, when compared to Almighty Providence and its will, he becomes just as infinitely strong the instant he acts in accordance with this Providence.... And when I look back on the five years behind us, I cannot help but say: this has not been the work of man alone.  Had Providence not guided us, I surely would often have been unable to follow these dizzying paths.  That is something our critics above all should know.  At the bottom of our hearts, we National Socialists are devout!  We have no choice: no one can make national or world history if his deeds and abilities are not blessed by Providence.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 908

         In Munich on 24 February 1940:
         I, however, believe that we are here dealing with divine justice.... Providence, our God, as I prefer to say, will not abandon such a nation.
         This God of whom I speak will not abandon us.  He will guide us further along the path we have set our foot upon, and in this feeling of righteousness and justice we shall continue our efforts as we have begun them, certain that victory will be ours, because it is so ordained.
         MY NEW ORDER  by Adolph Hitler, Edited by de Sales, 1941, page 788

         And feeling himself fulfilling a divine calling Hitler stated on various occasions:
         I believe that it was also God's will that from here [Austria] a boy was to be sent into the Reich, allowed to mature, and elevated to become the nation's Fuhrer.
         I follow the path assigned to me by Providence with the instinctive sureness of a sleepwalker.
         When I look back on the five years behind us, I cannot help but say: this has not been the work of man alone.  Had province not guided us, I surely would often have been unable to follow these dizzying paths.
         The Almighty will always help those who help themselves.
        God formed this Volk, and it has become what it should according to God's will, and according to our will, it shall remain, nevermore to fade!
         Work such as ours which has received the blessings of the Omnipotent can never again be undone by mere mortals.
         God helped us.
         Where will and faith so fervently join forces, Heaven cannot withhold its approval.
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 30

         Hitler felt the judging of whether or not a people’s labor and deeds are good or bad is a matter for God to determine and not man and uttered words to this effect on 1 April 1939 in front of the Rathaus in Wilhelmshafen:
         ... all that we can say is: the judgment whether a people is virtuous or not--that a mere man can hardly pronounce--that must be left to the good God.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1594

         He also believed, as do the Bushites, that God punishes, tests, and favors believers according to their beliefs, behavior, and labor and conveyed that message at the Harvest Thanksgiving Festival on the Buckeberg on 3 October 1937:
         ... in the future as in the past the Lord God will always help us.  In the long run He never leaves a decent folk in the lurch.  Often He may test them, He may send trials upon them, but in the long run He always lets His sun shine upon them once more and at the end He gives them His blessing.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 407

         In his closing speech at the Nuremberg Parteitag of 1937:
         Often it is through a chastisement that the deepest love of Providence towards its creatures is displayed.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 690

         On 27 February 1932 in the Berlin Sportpalast:
         I believe in Divine Justice.  I believe that it has defeated Germany because we had become faithless, and I believe that it will help us because we now once again profess our faith.
     I believe that the long arm of the Almighty will withdraw from those who are seeking merely alien shelter.
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 120

         In Munich on 2 April 1927:
         We are not a Party of lazy, narrow-minded townsmen; we are not a Movement of worthless brothers, who are content to discuss the topics of the day, who as men say to their wives: My dear wife, the Lord has given, the Lord has taken away, praise be the will of the Lord; if it pleases Him, He will make us free again.  No!  The Lord gave us His blessing because we deserved it; the Lord revoked His blessing because we were not worthy of it; the Lord will give us His blessing again when He sees that He has a rejuvenated people before Him.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 87

         And in Karlsruhe on 12 March 1936:
         And should unnecessary sorrow or suffering ever come to my people because of my actions, then I beseech the Almighty God to punish me.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 110

         Through numerous comments Hitler, like Bush, made no secret of his firm adherence to Christianity. At Hamburg on 17 August 1934 he stated:
         The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 385

         In the Party Program formulated in Munich on 24 February 1920:
         The party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession.  It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us,...
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 107
         THE HITLER DECREES, by James Pollock and Harlow Heneman, 1934, Page 3

         After all, I am a Christian, am I not?
         I AM ADOLPH HITLER, by Adolph Hitler, Ed. by Werner/Lotte Pelz, 1971, Page 115

         I'm a Catholic.  Certainly that was fated from the beginning, for only a Catholic knows the weaknesses of the Church.
         THE VOICE OF DESTRUCTION, by Hermann Rauschnigg, 1940, page 52

         [Footnote]: On 4 July 1933 the Dean of Chichester had an interview with Hitler in the course of which Hitler said:
         I am a Catholic, I have no place in the Protestant church.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 400

         In a speech to the Germans of the Saar at Koblenz on 26 August 1934:
         National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity.  And we have no other desire than to be true to that position.  I know that there are thousands and tens of thousands of priests who are not merely reconciled to the State of today but who gladly give to the State their cooperation, and I am convinced that this cooperation will grow ever closer and more intimate.  For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord.  These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!  But I believe that if we should fail to follow these principles, then we should not be able to point to our successes, for the result of our political battle is surely not unblest by God.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 386
 
 

         And in the Sportpalast in Berlin on 24 October 1933:
         He [Bishop Mueller] said he knew that the Chancellor [Hitler] himself was very anxious that the people should not turn National Socialism into a substitute for Christianity, and that he desired especially to have the youth rightly guided in this direction.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 379

         Hitler not only firmly believed in Christianity but, like Bush, considered Christian principles to be the basis of morality.
         From the Proclamation by the Government to the German Nation on 1 February 1933:
         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 by Hitler, Edited by Raoul de Roussy de Sales, 1941, Page 144

         In a statement on the Enabling Act to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933:
         In the same way, the Government of the Reich, who regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and the moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See, and are endeavoring to develop them.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 2, Page 1018
         ADOLPH HITLER QUOTATIONS, by Karl Hammer,1990, Page 58
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 283

         In his closing speech to the Nuremberg Parteitag of 1935:
         ... And the two factors which made this development possible were the model set by the States of the ancient world and the Christian religion.  Without these, it is impossible to conceive what would have been the fate of Europe and of the rest of the world, so far as the white race is in question;...
 Christianity provided the religious and Weltanschaulich basis on which a German state could be raised despite the absence of any tribal unity.  Only on this platform of religion and State in the course of centuries could the exclusive peculiarities of the tribes be smoothed down and overcome in favor of that common blood-descent and therefore inner community out of which a nation could be born.  The men who carried out this historic process acted under a commission given to them by Providence, who wished that we Germans should become a people.
         In this process Christianity provided the common store of religious and moral ideas which formed the unity in which German tribes could unite. And what Christianity destroyed had to fall if this unity were to be realized.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 439

         And finally he stated in his most infamous writing:
         If one were to take from present mankind its principles based on religion and faith, which in their practical effectiveness are ethical and moral, by eliminating this religious education and without replacing it by an equivalent, one would be confronted with a result amounting to a serious undermining of the foundations of their existence.  Therefore one may well determine that man lives not only in order to serve higher ideals, but that these higher ideals, inversely, give also the presumption for his existence as man.  Thus the circle was closed.
         MEIN KAMPF, Adolph Hitler, New York, Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939, page 574

         As with Bush, religious Hitler believed life is a fight between good and evil:
         Two worlds face one another--the men of God and the men of Satan!
         THE VOICE OF DESTRUCTION, by Hermann Rauschnigg, 1940, page 241

         And, like a recent Alabama judge determined to oppose the First Amendment to the US Constitution, he was convinced the Ten Commandments lie at the foundation of all morality:
         The Ten Commandments are a code of living to which there's no refutation.  These precepts correspond to irrefragable needs of the human soul; they're inspired by the best religious spirit, and the Churches here support themselves on a solid foundation.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 85

         Being a dedicated Christian, it comes as no surprise to anyone that Hitler accepted Jesus Christ as his Savior and viewed him as a fighter for the downtrodden.
        He made that abundantly clear in a speech in Munich on 12 April 1922:
         My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who, once lonely with only a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were, and called me to fight them, and who, so help me, was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. With boundless love, as a Christian and as a man, I read the passage which relates how the Lord finally gathered His strength and made use of the whip in order to drive the usurers, the vipers, and cheats from the temple.  Today 2,000 years later, I recognize with deep emotion Christ's tremendous fight for this world against the Jewish poison.  I recognize it most profoundly by the fact that He had to shed His blood on the cross for his fight.  As a Christian it is not my duty to permit myself to be cheated but it is my duty to be a champion of truth and of right.
         As man it is my duty to see to it that humanity will not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did an old civilization about 2,000 years ago, a civilization which was also driven to destruction by the Jewish people....
 As a Christian I owe something to my own people.  I see how this people is working and working, laboring and exerting itself, and still at the end of the week it has nothing but misery and poverty to show for it.  One perhaps does not realize it in the homes of the nobility.  But when I go out in the mornings and see those people in the breadlines and look into their drawn faces, then I become convinced that I am a veritable devil and not a Christian if I do not feel compassion and do not wage war, as our Lord did 2,000 years ago, against those who are pillaging and exploiting this poor people (the German people--Ed.)....
         Two thousand years ago a man was likewise denounced by this particular race which today is denouncing and blaspheming everywhere.... That man was dragged into court and they said then: He is arousing the people! So he also was "agitating." And against whom? Against "God," they cried. Yes indeed he was agitating against the "god” of the Jews, for that "god" is money.
         HITLER’S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, 1944, Edited by Gordon  Prange, pages 71-72
         MY NEW ORDER  by Adolph Hitler, Edited by de Sales, 1941, page 26

         And being consumed by this mentality one can readily understand why Hitler, like Bush, believed the teachings of Jesus should be disseminated to everyone especially the youth:
         We must turn all the sentiments of the Volk, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid Phariseeism of personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ's words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers!  This youth will, with loathing and contempt, abandon those hypocrites who have Christ on their lips but the devil in their hearts,...
         HITLER--MEMOIRS OF A CONFIDANT, by Otto Wegener, 1985, page 140

         Mary and Mary Magdalene stood at the empty tomb.  For they were seeking the dead man!  But we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ!
         Herein lies the essential element of our mission: we must bring back to the German Volk the recognition of those teachings!
         HITLER--MEMOIRS OF A CONFIDANT, by Otto Wegener, 1985, page 140

         And on 20 April 1923:
         We want to prevent our Germany from suffering, as Another did, the death upon the Cross.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 60

         Hitler even extols the followers of Christ who endured persecution for their beliefs:
         Immediately after the death of Christ, whom the reactionaries crucified, they set about exterminating, at least imprisoning and depriving of their rights, all those who had accepted Christ before his death.  Christ's body was removed from the tomb, to keep it from becoming an object of veneration and a tangible relic of the great new founder of a religion!  In all the larger municipalities, commissions were established, special courts, to pass judgment on Christ's followers.  The Gospels report in graphic detail the expropriations, forced labor, two years or more of prison, and even death penalties that were inflicted in order to exterminate the plague of true Christianity.  The Roman occupation forces aided in this effort.  And a major re-education program was initiated to reconvert--or rather, force to reconvert--those who might have gravitated to Christ or were vacillating.
         HITLER--MEMOIRS OF A CONFIDANT, by Otto Wegener, 1985, page 316

         The writings of Hitler are occasionally composed in such a manner as to make it difficult to determine if he is a politician pontificating on religion or a minister preaching on politics.  With so much of his ideology resting upon religion and his pronounced proclivity to seek succor from religion, one can easily understand why Hitler, like Bush, spared no effort to involve government with religion and to render assistance to the latter by means of the former.  As far as Hitler was concerned, in many ways government was little more than an adjunct to religion.  His desire that government and religion operate in unison was evident in a speech on 23 March 1933 before the Reichstag:
         It will be the Government's care to maintain honest cooperation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith.
         THE HITLER DECREES, by James Pollock and Harlow Heneman, 1934, Page 66
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 371

         Hitler felt that one of the government’s obligations was to protect religion and stated as much on 22 July 1933 when he said on the wireless:
         National socialism has always affirmed that it is determined to take the Christian Churches under the protection of the State.  For their part the Churches cannot, for a second, doubt that they need the protection of the State, and that only through the State can they be enabled to fill their religious mission.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 375

         But on one point it is well that there should be no uncertainty: the German priest as a servant of God we shall protect,...
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Pages 397-401

         From Hitler’s vantage point, government was not only bound to protect religion but help it grow and expand.  In a speech to the Reichstag on 30 January 1934 he stated:
         The State has dealt no less radically with the two Christian confessions [Protestantism and Catholicism].  Filled by the desire to secure for the German Volk the great religious, moral, and ethical values anchored in the two Christian confessions, we have eliminated the political organizations while, at the same time, reinforcing the religious institutions.
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 419

         And in a speech delivered at Stuttgart on 15 February 1933 he professed the desire of the National Socialist Government to:
         ...fill our whole culture once more with a Christian spirit, and that not only in politics.  We want to burn out the harmful features in our theater and our literature.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 370

         In order to achieve these goals Hitler sought to bestow upon Christian denominations that which they needed more than anything else to expand their influence and control, namely, financial support.  Hitler’s faith-based initiatives preceded those of Bush by decades and went even further by employing programs Bush would no doubt envy and love to inaugurate.
         In a speech to the Reichstag on 30 January 1939 Hitler said:
         Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the so-called democracies is the charge that the National Socialist State is hostile to religion.  In answer to that charge I should like to make before the German people the following solemn declaration:
         1.  No one in Germany has in the past been persecuted because of his religious views, nor will anyone in the future be so persecuted.
         2.  The National Socialist State since 30 January 1933 from public monies derived from taxation through the organs of the State has placed at the disposal of both Churches [Protestant and Catholic] the following sums:
 Fiscal year 1933--130 million Reichsmark
 Fiscal year 1934--170 million Reichsmark
 Fiscal year 1935--250 million Reichsmark
 Fiscal year 1936--320 million Reichsmark
 Fiscal year 1937--400 million Reichsmark
 Fiscal year 1938--500 million Reichsmark
         In addition to this there has been paid over some 85 million Reichsmark each year from contributions of the separate States, and some 7 million Reichsmark from contributions of the parishes and parish-associations.
 Apart from this the churches are the greatest landed proprietors after the App.  The value of their property in land and forests represents more than some 10 millions of Reichsmark, while the annual income from this landed property is to be estimated as over 300 million Reichsmark.  To this must be added countless gifts, testamentary dispositions, above all the sums arising from collections in the churches.  Further, the Church in the National Socialist State is in many ways favored in regard to taxation, and for gifts, legacies, etc., it enjoys immunity from taxation.
         It is therefore, to put it mildly -- effrontery when especially foreign politicians make bold to speak of hostility to religion in the Third Reich.  But if it be true that the German Churches regard this position as intolerable, then the National Socialist State is at anytime ready to undertake a clear separation between Church and State as is already the case in France, America, and other countries.  [Notice that there was no separation between church and state in Nazi Germany]  I would allow myself only one question: what contributions during the same period have France, England, or the United States made through the State from the public funds?
         3.  The National Socialist State has not closed a church, nor has it prevented the holding of a religious service, nor has it ever exercised any influence upon the form of a religious service.  It has not exercised any pressure upon the doctrine nor on the profession of faith of any of the Confessions.  In the National Socialist State anyone is free to seek his blessedness after his own fashion.
         4.  The National Socialist State is neither prudish nor mendacious.  But there are definite moral principles which must be maintained in the interest of the biological health of the nation; violations of these principles we will not permit.  Pederasty or offenses against children will be punished by the law and this State against whoever commits these crimes.  Five years ago when leaders of the National Socialist Party were guilty of these crimes, they were shot.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 397-399

         With a tenth part of our budget for religion, we would thus have a Church devoted to the State and of unshakable loyalty.  We must have done with these out-of-date forms.  The little sects, which receive only a few hundred thousand marks, are devoted to us body and soul.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 306

         In another revelation of his intentions to support religion financially Hitler stated:
         On reflection, it seems to be that an annual grant of 50 millions should be enough for the Catholic Church.  It would be paid directly to the princes of the Church, who would be responsible for the sharing out.  Thus we could have the "official" guarantee (since it would be a Church matter) of a "just" distribution of the money....
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 410

         And he also said:
         You can bet anything, if one relies on historical precedents, that the princes of the church would lick my boots for the value of the money, the more so if they could do what they liked with it.  Therefore, if it's possible to buy the high dignitaries of the Church with money, let's do it!  And if one of them wanted to enjoy his life, and for this purpose put his hand into the till, for the love of Heaven let him be left in peace!
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 411

         Bishop Mueller said  of Hitler:
         “Hitler feels the office of the Chancellor of the Reich has been directed to the conservation of the church life of the people.  He has given enough proof of that.  His only wish is that a Christian education may be transmitted to the people.”
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 382

 The Fuhrer believed religious views should be protected no matter how superstitious which would presumably include beliefs inimical to the maintenance of life such as those generated by Mark 16 of Scripture:
         I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed.  Superstition shall not lose its rights.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 62

         He not only promoted the dissemination of religion and denounced opposition to its extension but was incensed when religious figures did not realize they needed Nazism for protection, especially against the advance of Soviet Marxism or Bolshevism.
        On 22 July 1933 he said on the wireless:
         Only a fool can imagine that, for example, the victory of Bolshevism could be irrelevant for the Catholic or the Evangelical Church [Protestant churches] and that therefore it would not disturb or even prevent the former activities of bishops or superintendents.  The assertion that such dangers could be overcome through the action of the Churches alone is untenable; it is contradicted by the facts.  Neither the Catholic Church nor the Evangelical, nor the Russian-Uniate church has been able or would be able to stay the advance of Bolshevism.  Wherever there has not been created a concrete 'volkic'-political defense [such as Nazism] to counter that advance there the victory of Communism is already won, or at least the battle is still undecided.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 375

         And because Nazism served and protected the confessions vigorously Hitler expected the latter to support Nazism fully.
        In a speech to the Reichstag on 30 January 1934 he stated:
         This year the National Socialist State has clearly demonstrated its high regard for the strength of the Christian faiths, and hence it expects the same high regard on the part of the confessions for the strength of the National Socialist State.
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 419

         In light of all the above, the anti-religious, anti-god, anti-Christian portrayal many have been led to believe applies to Hitler can clearly be seen as a delusion, a fantasy fostered primarily by those seeking to put distance, especially in the realm of politics, between their views and those of the Fuhrer.
         The issue now becomes one of accounting for the religious persecution that did occur in Nazi Germany for most assuredly some religious figures paid dearly.  How can one account for what appears to be an inconsistency.  The answer lies in the nature of those persecuted, for most assuredly there were vast differences in the philosophies of various religious figures and movements.  It was not fundamentalists and other right-wing religious figures analogous to America’s Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Oral Roberts, Cardinal Spellman, and Billy Graham who were persecuted in Germany.  By no means.  It was those ideologically aligned to such individuals as Father Groppi, Martin Luther King Jr., William Sloan Coffin Jr., the Berrigan Brothers, Jessie Jackson, Archbishop Oscar Romero, Latin American Catholic priests expounding Liberation Theology, and others on the liberal or left wing of the political/religious spectrum.  For them Nazism was the nearest equivalent to perdition.
 As far as Hitler and other Nazis were concerned the only place in which the clergy should operate was the church and the pulpit.  They ordered the clergy to stay out of politics entirely and both warned and threatened all those who failed to pay heed.  In words of the vernacular, as long as religious figures kept their noses out of politics they had nothing to fear.  The following comments by Hitler illuminate this attitude all too clearly.
         Near Augsburg on 23 November 1937 Hitler addressed the Churches formally and stated:
         We are giving you [the Churches] unconditional freedom in your teachings and in your views on what God is.  For we are well aware that we ourselves know nothing of these things.
         Yet let one thing be quite clear: the Churches may determine the fate of the German being in the next world, but in this world the German nation, by way of its leaders, is determining the fate of the German being.  Only if there is such a clear and clean-cut division can life he made bearable in a time of transition.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 980

         In a speech to the Party officials of Saxony at Leipzig on 16 July 1933:
         Through the Concordat with the Catholic Church the participation of clergy in the political life of the parties has been brought to an end.  We will strengthen religion, the churches shall have their freedom: the politics are our task.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 637
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 347

         In Berlin on 1 May 1937:
         This also applies to all the Churches.  As long as they concern themselves with their religious problems, the State will not concern itself with them.  If they attempt, however, to presume by virtue of any actions, letters, encyclicals, etc. to claim rights which accrue solely to the State, we will force them back into their right and proper spiritual-pastoral activities.  Nor is it acceptable to criticize the morality of a state from that quarter when they have more than enough reason to call their own morality into question.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 892

         The last sentence is rather illuminating in that it suggests the Germany of that era had a significant amount of clerical immorality not unlike that recently demonstrated in the US by Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and many Catholic priests.
         An interesting sideline comment that has implications for today with reference to Catholic priests is:
          The idea of nakedness torments only the priests, for the education they undergo makes them perverts.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 320

         Hitler appears to be saying the clergy has no right to criticize the political leaders in light of its own behavior.  As far as he is concerned, the reprehensibility of the latter’s behavior provides even greater reason they need to confine their activities to the church and pastoral concerns.
         Hitler had no patience whatever with clergymen who sought to participate in politics and was even more opposed to any political parties they sought to create or actually led.
        In a 24 October 1933 speech in Berlin he stated:
         And above all we have pulled the priests out of the marsh of political party fighting and put them back into the church again.  It is our desire that they never again return to an area which they were not created for, which debases them and which must inevitably bring them into opposition to millions of people who really want to be faithful inside, but who want to see priests serve God and not a political party!
         ADOLPH HITLER QUOTATIONS, by Karl Hammer,1990, Page 59

         At the annual Party Congress on 11 September 1935:
         We have already fought a battle against the political clergy and ousted it from the parliaments, and that after a long struggle in which we had no state authority and the other side had it all.  Today we have this authority and we will more easily be able to win the struggle for these principles.  But we will never wage this battle as a battle against Christianity or even against one of the two confessions. But we will wage it in order to keep our public life pure and free of those priests who have mistaken their calling, those who should have become politicians and not clergymen.
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 692

         And in Mein Kampf:
         ... the movement [Nazism] fought most bitterly against the Center [the Catholic party], not, of course, on religious, but exclusively on questions of national, racial, and economic policy.
         MEIN KAMPF, Adolph Hitler, New York, Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939, page 829

         From Hitler’s perspective the Weimar government that ruled Germany for 14 years after WWI was peopled by a gang of traitorous puppets doing the bidding of the allied powers while working in close collaboration with Marxists who held offices at every level of German leadership, an allegation not significantly different from that propounded by Joe McCarthy in the United States 2 decades later.  As far as Hitler was concerned every political party except the NSDAP was guilty of subversion to one degree or another and that was certainly true in his eyes of the Centrist Party which was overwhelmingly dominated by Catholic leaders.  Collaboration between religious parties and godless atheists, the Marxists, was constantly denounced by Hitler in no uncertain terms and he repeatedly said he could never understand how religious figures could work with the godless.
         For the first number of the Volkischer Beobachter on 26 February 1925 Hitler wrote an article in which he said:
         ... a party which allies itself with atheistic Marxism for the oppression of its own people is neither Christian nor Catholic.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 368

         In a 31 July 1932 election proclamation:
         I don't understand... how one can talk against the Godless like the Center (party), but at the same time come to terms with them.
         ADOLPH HITLER QUOTATIONS, by Karl Hammer,1990, Page 31

         In a speech delivered at Cologne on 19 February 1933 Hitler continued his attack upon Centrum--the Catholic Centre Party--by saying:
         How can a party talk of the fight for Christianity which for 14 years has sat together with atheists and those who deny the existence of God?
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 249

         In an address to the Party Congress on 12 September 1938:
         ... The Center Party [the Catholic Party] claimed to be fighting us because we were hostile to the Church, and yet to this end it entered into a holy alliance with atheist Social Democrats and did not shrink from uniting with the Communists....
         HITLER, [Speeches and Proclamations], by Max Domarus, Vol. 2, page 1151

         While speaking to some religious figures and others:
         Good, I take note of that.  But how can you then advocate a coalition with the Marxists, with our deadly enemies, the Social Democrats?
         SECRET CONVERSATIONS WITH HITLER, Edited by Edouard Calic, 1971. Page 34

         In the New Year's Proclamation for 1 January 1932:
         Today Bolshevism and its Marxist-Centrist-Democratic helpers are faced with a gigantic front of awakening Germany!  Were it not for the pact which the Center and the middle classes have entered into with Marxism as a result of their inner relatedness of character, there would be no red, anti-Christian Germany today.  Therefore they are the accursed accomplices of Bolshevism.
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 79

         In his New Year’s Message on 1 January 1934 Hitler claimed that by destroying the Catholic Center Party he was serving both religion and morality:
         Not only in the economic sphere but also in the other spheres of the nation's life we have, during the past year, fought an unceasing battle against the symptoms of degeneracy in our people.  The religious, moral, and ethical signs of the time spoke a language that compelled us so to act.  While we destroyed the Center Party, we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 382

         In a statement on the Enabling Act on 23 March 1933:
         In being determined to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, the government is creating and securing the requirements for a genuinely profound return to religious life.
         The advantages in personnel policy which might result from compromises with atheist organizations do not come close to offsetting the results which would become apparent in the general destruction of basic moral values.
 The National Government perceives in the two Christian confessions [Protestantism and Catholicism] the most important factors for the preservation of our Volkstum.  It will respect any contracts concluded between these churches and the Lander.
         ... The Government's concern lies in an honest coexistence between Church and State; the fight against the materialist Weltanschauung and for a genuine Volksgemeinschaft equally serves both the interests of the German nation and the welfare of our Christian faith.
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 279
         MY NEW ORDER by Hitler, Edited by Raoul de Roussy de Sales, 1941, Page 153
         THE HITLER DECREES, by James Pollock and Harlow Heneman, 1934, Page 66

         In a Stuttgart speech on 15 February 1933:
         And now Staatsprasident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us.  And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians [Nazis] and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany.  I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity.  If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these 14 years when they went arm in arm with atheism?  No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these 14 years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government.
         But no, they could not, they did not wish to separate themselves from the party-world of atheism.  We wish to fill our culture once more with the spirit of Christianity--and not only in theory.  No, we want to burn out the symptoms of decomposition in literature, in the theater, in the Press--in a word in our whole culture; we want to burn out this whole poison which during these 14 years has flowed into our life.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 240
         HITLER, SPEECHES AND PROCLAMATIONS 1932-45, Vol. 1, by Max Domarus, page 253

         The philosophy of George Bush is thoroughly embodied in words such as “We wish to fill our culture once more with the spirit of Christianity--and not only in theory.”  Realizing that fact the problem then becomes one of deciding to what extent “we want to burn out the symptoms of decomposition in literature, in the theater, in the Press--in a word in our whole culture; we want to burn out this whole poison...” is representative of Bushism as well.
 When attacked for using a Swastika as his emblem, Hitler retaliated by denouncing his detractors for placing the Christian Cross at the head of parties allied with atheistic Marxism.  For him the Swastika was the political symbol of complete detachment from atheism.
        In Munich on 25 October 1930 he stated:
         And when it is said to me as many have: How can you carry your heathenish symbol [Swastika] in the van of this struggle when the Christian Cross alone is called to lead it?  To that I say: This symbol is not directed against the Christian Cross.  On the contrary, it is the political manifestation of what the Christian cross intends or must intend.... I believe that if now suddenly Christ, our Lord, should appear among this unfortunate German people and one were to induce him to take a stand in this political struggle--I do not believe that Christ, our Lord, would go and seek out a place within the ranks of the [Catholic] Center Party in the German Reichstag!
         To be sure, our Christian Cross should be the most exalted symbol of the struggle against the Jewish-Marxist-Bolshevik spirit. But then the parties, however, which come to terms with Marxism, with Atheism, indeed with the refined form of the same which Bolshevism represents, should not advertise the Cross of Christ as their party symbol.  One should from the very beginning, however, preserve this Cross from any political contact until the structure of these political parties again becomes worthy of association with this symbol, until these parties again pursue policies which are in keeping with the inner significance of this symbol.
         HITLER'S WORDS, by Adolph Hitler, Edited by Gordon Prange, 1944, page 87

         And in Mein Kampf:
         In the two religious denominations [Protestantism and Catholicism] it [the Nazi party] sees two equally valuable pillars for the existence of our people, and for this reason it fights those parties which wish to degrade this foundation of an ethical, religious, and moral prop [the Cross] of our national body to the instrument of their party interests.
         MEIN KAMPF, Adolph Hitler, New York, Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939, page 479

         Hitler was not only vigorously opposed to religious figures or religious parties participating in politics but felt that by aligning with the material world of Bolshevism the religious leaders were preparing the masses for a fall into materialism.  This was the evident when he said:
         The most pressing danger, as I see it, is that Christianity, by adhering to a conception of the Beyond which is constantly exposed to the attacks of unceasing progress, and by binding it so closely to many of the trivialities of life which may at any moment collapse, is ripening mankind for conversion to materialistic Bolshevism.  And that is a terrible tragedy.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 606

         In fact, for Catholic Hitler some religious teachings were wrong in their own right, regardless of to whom they may or may not be allied.  Although deeply religious, the Fuhrer was not a sycophantic adherent to every tenet of Catholicism and proved as much by expressing disdain for some teachings and dogma often decried by atheists and others as well.  This became obvious when he said:
         For me, God is the Logos of St. John, which has become flesh and lives in the world, interwoven with it and pervading it, conferring on it drives and driving force, and constituting the actual meaning and content of the world.
 Perhaps the adherents of the Roman Church would call this "paganism."  That may well be so.  In that case, Christ was a pagan.  I call pagan their distortions of Christ's ideas and teachings, their cults, their conception of hell, purgatory, and heaven, and their worship of saints.
         HITLER--MEMOIRS OF A CONFIDANT, by Otto Wegener, 1985, page 224

         It is no less difficult to eradicate these childish inhibitions than it is to free the human soul of that haunting terror of Hell which the Catholic Church impresses on it with such vigor during its most tender years.  A man possessed of a minimum of intelligence who takes the trouble to ponder over these questions has no difficulty in realizing how nonsensical these doctrines of the Church are.  For how, he must ask himself, can a man possibly be put on a spit, be roasted and tortured in a hundred other ways when, in the nature of things, his body has no part in the resurrection?  And what nonsense it is to aspire to a Heaven to which, according to the Church's own teaching, only those have entry who have made a complete failure of life on earth!  It won't be much fun, surely, to have to meet again there all those whose stupidity, in spite of the biblical tag "blessed are the humble of heart," has already infuriated one beyond endurance on this earth!  Imagine, too, how tremendously attractive a Heaven will be to a man, which contains only women of indifferent appearance and faded intellect!  Only those, we are told, with the minimum of sin shall enter through the gates of Heaven; now, in spite of the fact that the burden of sin must inevitably grow heavier with each successive year, I have yet to meet a priest anxious to leave this life as quickly, and therefore with as light a burden, as possible!  But I could name many a Cardinal of 60 and over who clings most tenaciously to life on this sinful earth.  When one examines the Catholic religion closely, one cannot fail to realize that it is an almost incredibly cunning mixture of hypocrisy and business acumen, which trades with consummate skill on the deeply ingrained affection of mankind for the beliefs and superstitions he holds.  It is inconceivable that an educated priest should really believe all the nonsense that the Church pours out; a proof there, to my mind, is the fact that the priest themselves always try to confuse the issue on the subject of the swindle of dispensations, and avoid whenever possible any discussion of the subject.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 419

         He went so far as to unconditionally denounce some acts of the Catholic Church:
 When one recollects further that the Catholic Church has elevated to the status of Saints a whole number of madmen,....
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 513

         And his censure of the Church’s oppressive history was exceptionally vehement:
         The pity is that people who reason in this matter appear to forget that the Church does not strive to propagate its teaching by reason and gentle persuasion, but by force and threat.  This is certainly not my idea of education.  It is moreover obvious that, had the Church followed solely the laws of Love, and had she preached Love alone as the means of instilling her moral precepts, she would not have survived for very long.  She has therefore always remained faithful to the ancient maxim that the right hand must not know what the left hand does, and has bowed to the necessity of imposing her moral principles by means of the utmost brutality, not hesitating even to burn in their thousands men and women of merit and virtue.  We ourselves are today much more humane than the Church.  We obey the Commandment: "Thou shall not kill," by catching and executing a murderer; but the Church, when the executive power lay in her hands, crucified, quartered and did him to death with indescribable torture.
         HITLER'S TABLE TALK, 1941-1944, Translated by Cameron & Stevens, 2000, page 420

         Yet, Hitler, like so many Christian apologists throughout history, was quick to discount heinous acts perpetrated in the name of Christianity by blaming odious transgressions on individuals rather than Christianity in general.  That approach surfaced early on at a conference of all district organizers held at Bamberg on 14 February 1923 in which Hitler formally appointed Gottfried Feder to be the final judge and spokesman on all questions regarding the Programme.  In his commentary Feder wrote:
         ". . .  The same may be said of all the course, stupid attacks on Christianity.  Expressions such as 'Christianity has only done harm' merely show that the man who utters them has neither human nor political intelligence.  One may indeed blame the Church for meddling in politics, and all good Christians still disapprove of the cruelties practiced in the name of the Cross by the Inquisition and of the trials for witchcraft, but it is wrong to abuse in general terms the greatest phenomenon in human history because of the perversities and erroneous ideas and defaults of individuals.  The Christian religion has uplifted and strengthened millions upon millions, and brought them to God by the way of suffering."
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 366

         The foregoing helps explains why Hitler said of the previous government in a Stuttgart speech on Feb. 15, 1933:
         I would ask whether the economic policy of this now superseded system was a Christian policy.  Was the inflation an undertaking for which Christians could answer, or has the destruction of German life, of the German peasant as well as of the middle classes, been Christian?
         MY NEW ORDER  by Adolph Hitler, Edited by de Sales, 1941, page 149

         All of the above vividly discloses why Hitler, like so many followers of Bush and his ideological predecessors, considered himself and his party to be the only bona fide carries of the Christian Cross, the true Christians.  From the Fuhrer’s vantage point all others were phonies and dupes or allies of either atheists or the non-religious and he alleged as much on several occasions.  In a speech at Koblenz to the Germans of the Saar on 26 August 1934 he said:
         I know that here and there the objection has been raised: Yes, but you have deserted Christianity.  No, it is not we who have deserted Christianity, it is those who came before us who deserted Christianity.  We have only carried through a clear division between politics, which have to do with terrestrial things, and religion, which must concern itself with the celestial sphere.  There has been no interference with the doctrine of the Confessions [Protestantism and Catholicism] or with their religious freedom, nor will there be any such interference.  On the contrary the State protects religion, though always on the one condition that religion will not be used as a cover for political ends.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 386

         In a 27 August 1934 speech in Ehrenbreitstein:
         Not we, rather those before us, distanced themselves from it (from Christianity).  We have simply introduced a pure separation between politics, which is supposed to occupy itself with earthly things, and religion, which must occupy itself with the divine.
         ADOLPH HITLER QUOTATIONS, by Karl Hammer,1990, Page 58

         In a speech at Koblenz on 26 August 1934:
         National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of real Christianity.  And we have no other desire than to be true to that position.... These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 386

         And he also claimed to be the genuine representative of Christianity by virtue of the fact that Nazis aided the poor and downtrodden.
        In his Munich speech to the "Old Guard" on 24 February 1939 he stated:
         If positive Christianity means love of one's neighbor, i.e., the tending of the sick, the clothing of the poor, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of drink to those who are thirsty, then it is we who are the more positive Christians.  For in these spheres the community of the people of National Socialist Germany has accomplished a prodigious work.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 402

         While talking at the Winter Help Campaign in October 1937:
         This Winter Help Work is also in the deepest sense a Christian work.  When I see, as I often do, poorly clad girls collecting with such infinite patience in order to care for those who are suffering from the cold while they themselves are shivering with cold, then I have the feeling that they are all apostles of a Christianity--and in truth of a Christianity which can say with greater right than any other: This is the Christianity of an honest confession, for behind it stand not words but deeds.
         HITLER'S SPEECHES by Norman Baynes, 1942, VOLUME 1, Page 393

         In summary, and in light of all the foregoing, one of the greatest misconceptions of the Nazi era can be laid to rest.  Hitler was in no sense an atheist or anti-religious but was very much in the Bush tradition of religious zealotry.

More can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/klomckin@ameritech.net/Chaps.1b.html#2nd%20Part%20of%20Chapter%201

Catholic Concentration Camps!

Catholic extermination camps
Surprisingly few know that Nazi extermination camps in World War II were by no means the only ones in Europe at the time. In the years 1942-1943 also in Croatia existed numerous extermination camps, run by Catholic Ustasha under their dictator Ante Paveliç, a practicing Catholic and regular visitor to the then pope. There were even concentration camps exclusively for children!
In these camps - the most notorious was Jasenovac, headed by a Franciscan friar - orthodox-Christian Serbians (and a substantial number of Jews) were murdered. Like the Nazis the Catholic Ustasha burned their victims in kilns, alive (the Nazis were decent enough to have their victims gassed first). But most of the victims were simply stabbed, slain or shot to death, the number of them being estimated between 300,000 and 600,000, in a rather tiny country. Many of the killers were Franciscan friars. The atrocities were appalling enough to induce bystanders of the Nazi "Sicherheitsdienst der SS", watching, to complain about them to Hitler (who did not listen). The pope knew about these events and did nothing to prevent them. [MV]

 

[MV] A.Manhattan, The Vatican's Holocaust, Springfield 1986. See also: V.Dedijer, The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, Buffalo NY, 1992.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


zoonooz
zoonooz's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly wrote: The

ShaunPhilly wrote:

The implications of recognizing that I have free will, you have free will, and that perhaps if I'm going to value my own free will, I have to value yours unless I can demonstrate that my will somehow automatially trumps yours. 

Therefore, given that my free will to act cannot be shown to be necessarily (although perhaps conditionally) more valid, I cannot act in any way taht violates your will.

 The only acception to the rule would be to act agisnt another's will if their will involves hurting others.  In other words, once you have violated the will of another, you've violated the code and you therefore nullify your right not to be violated (at least to the extent of your transgression).

Why would violating the will of another be wrong?

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake - Chuck Palahniuk"


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
To all Christians:  Please

To all Christians:  Please refer to Rook's post above.  It is what we call "evidence."

Could you please make with some of your own now if you're going to say that Hitler was an atheist, or would you like to concede the point that theists were responsible for the holocaust?

Nicely done, Rook.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
zoonooz wrote: ShaunPhilly

zoonooz wrote:
ShaunPhilly wrote:

The implications of recognizing that I have free will, you have free will, and that perhaps if I'm going to value my own free will, I have to value yours unless I can demonstrate that my will somehow automatially trumps yours.

Therefore, given that my free will to act cannot be shown to be necessarily (although perhaps conditionally) more valid, I cannot act in any way taht violates your will.

The only acception to the rule would be to act agisnt another's will if their will involves hurting others. In other words, once you have violated the will of another, you've violated the code and you therefore nullify your right not to be violated (at least to the extent of your transgression).

Why would violating the will of another be wrong?

 

The implication here is telling and damning.

It seems like you are asking me what the absolute standard would be to determine that this violation is wrong.  You want some sort of Platonic Form or some command froma  supreme being to accept that violation of another's will is wrong, it seems to me.

Let's use some examples.  Let's say you want to eat your lunch.  Every time you tried to pick up your fork or otherwise try to get to your plate, I put my hand in the way.  If I did this a couple of times, it's amnor annoyance.  If I never stop, it's preventing you from eating.  I'm violating your will.  

Let's say you (asume the reader is a guy, simply for example) want to kiss your boyfriend.  Then some homophobic Christian evangelical steps in and demands that this sinning against God stop.  Any intrusion into these people's lives, who are choosing of their free will to kiss, are not violating the will of this intrudor.  (note, to say it violates the will of God begs the question of God's existence, let alone that God actually does not want this to hapen).

What if I found where you lived, broke down your door, and beat the crap out of you?  What if I just broke down your door and the proceeded to have a conversation with you?

If you honestly do not understand why a person should not violate the will of another person without permission, just cause (preventing them from harming), or by accident (the subsequent violation was not the intended result nor the forseeable result of a person acting) then I'm afraid you are being intentionally obtsuse to make a point or you are a sociopath.

If the former, the point is taken and rejected.  There is not need nor existence of an absolute and objective standard for what is good or wrong.  The fact that you can identify a potential one does not chang that.  I can invent all kinds of abstracted concepts, but they don't necessarily exist outside of my conceiving of them.  I'm imagining a perfect circle (not the band), but said circle does not exist in reality anywhere.  The mathematical concept is smply a description, the referent does not exist.

If you really don't understand that you should not violate the will of others, then I'll remember to steer clear of you.

 Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


zoonooz
zoonooz's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I didn't say I didn't

I didn't say I didn't understand why you should not violate the will of others.  I asked you to provide a reason why this is true.  I believe your response is making the claim that it is self-evident why this is wrong.

So, if the moral precept that:

ShaunPhilly wrote:

...you should not violate the will of others...

is self-evident, is it transcendent or a societal convention?

"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake - Chuck Palahniuk"


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
zoonooz wrote:

zoonooz wrote:

I didn't say I didn't understand why you should not violate the will of others. I asked you to provide a reason why this is true. I believe your response is making the claim that it is self-evident why this is wrong.

So, if the moral precept that:

ShaunPhilly wrote:

...you should not violate the will of others...

is self-evident, is it transcendent or a societal convention?

It's closer to being a social convention, but it is a logical implcation of the condition we, as social beings, find ourselves in.

It is the implication of the condition of multiple free beings with preferences, emotions, etc.

It is not transcendent because it is derived, bottom up, from observing the nature of our interactions. It can be abstracted into a general rule, so it becomes a kind of ideal or pseudo-transcendent reality (that is, a generalized conception).

It is social, because without other sentient, emotional, preference-having beings, there would be no other will to violate. That is, ethics are social principles and rules derived from our experience as well as built into our bahavior-patterns which are the result of the physical structure of the brain which developed from millions of years of natural selection--they are instinctual for most people.

I'm wondering where this questioning is leading to...

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.