Was Adolf Hitler a good Christian ?
Offline I recently watched a film called downfall. about Adolf Hitler's final days
And curiosity led me to read mein kamp. which I'm still reading.
I also listened to the rrs Atheist in Wonderland mp3 were Hitler was mentioned by one the the Fundie's in an interview,
"Atheist in Wonderland" I am a good guy "fundie" I know you feel that way. and in comparison with Hitler you are. but in comparison to Jesus you are nothing
? But is the Atheist in Wonderland a good guy in comparison with Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler from what I've read in mein kamp Hitler was a good Christian, whom believed in God. and he believed he was carrying out Gods work Adolf Hitler was a poor misguided sinner.and in his own mind he was bringing an uncompromising efficiency to the Inquisition started by the Catholic church. while the Atheist in Wonderland is a Blaspheming heretic whom rejects god and Jesus
? so which is worst
The Blaspheming heretic
The misguided Christian
- Login to post comments
Offline And there it is. The sweeping generalization.
Yet you call your self a Christian wavefreak. how could somebody who associates themselves with a defined group of people with a defined philosophy. expect not to be generalized about ?
like the defined group called Nazi's for instance with there defined philosophy ?
Can you see the problem ?
The greatest story ever told
Jesus was a fictional character. invented by storytellers. a profession that has been replaced by books radio TV and films. today's cult film replaces a storyteller that could weave a tale so real in your imagination you'd think you were there you're-self. the idea of Jesus is an inspirational one craftedt to perfection over millennia. if you research other religions you'll see the same core story repeated. Jesus as a character represents the best in all of us. the decision we wish we'd made if only we had the courage in the face of adversity. a traveling storyteller faced such adversity themselves when they entered a community that was controlled by a unjust tyrant. and they were hardly going to tell stories of bloody revolts against such tyrants. the stories they did tell are still repeated today and you know them well
The stories were meant to inspire you to take a stand to give you the courage to say no. no more this is wrong
But you've decided to say. well I know organized religion is wrong and I don't wish to be to heavenly associated with it
Excuse me for picking your conscience here wavefreak
"cough"
- Login to post comments
Offline Yet you call your self a Christian wavefreak. how could somebody who associates themselves with a defined group of people with a defined philosophy. expect not to be generalized about ?
like the defined group called Nazi's for instance with there defined philosophy ?
Can you see the problem ?
Huh? Where did I claim to be a Christian?
- Login to post comments
Offline Please don't confuse me with whatever brand of Christians you are upholding as the archetype
If you wish to know what type of "Christian" I am,
My support for contemporary Christianity is very thin
Would you prefer the term heavily implied ?
- Login to post comments
Offline wavefreak wrote:Please don't confuse me with whatever brand of Christians you are upholding as the archetypewavefreak wrote:If you wish to know what type of "Christian" I am,
wavefreak wrote:My support for contemporary Christianity is very thinWould you prefer the term heavily implied ?
Christianity is an open question for me. It contains some interesting theological concepts, but by and large, contemporary Christianity falls far short of what I can support. And I don't know of any fundamentalists that would consider me "saved".
Regarding the existence of an actual human called Jesus, I'm rather puzzled why anybody would expect hard archeological evidence to support this. He is described essentially as an itinerant preacher, hardly the type that would leave behind any preservable record of his life. Even the biblical account places his body in a borrowed tomb. Anything that would exist would almost certainly be second hand references and hearsay. What I do know is that something happened 2000 years ago that profoundly influenced the course of events even up until this very day. That is real evidence of the importance of Christainity.
- Login to post comments
Offline Chrishna of Hindostan, Budha Sakia of India, Salivahana of Bermuda, Zulis and Orus of Egypt, Odin of the Scandinavians, Crite of Chaldea, Baal and Taut of Phoenecia, Indra of Tibet, Bali of Afganistan, Jao of Nepal, Wittoba of the Bilingonese, Thammuz of Syria, Atys of Phrygia, Xamolxis of Thrace, Adad of Assyria, Deva Tat and Sammonocadam of Siam, Alcides of Thebes, Mikado of the Sintoos, Beddru of Japan, Hesus or Eros and Bremrillah of the Druids, Thor of the Gauls, Cadmus and Adonis of Greece, Hil and Feta of the Mandaites, Gentaut and Quexalcote of Mexico, Universal Monarch of the Sibyls, Ischy of the island of Formosa, Divine teacher of Plato, the Holy One of Xaca, Fohi and Tien of China, Ixion and Quirinus of Rome, Prometheus of Caucasus, Mohamud or Mahomet of Arabia.
wavefreak pick one of the above at random, and do some research. post your findings about the similarities between any of the stories above and the stories of Jesus 
- Login to post comments
Offline wavefreak pick one of the above at random, and do some research. post your findings about the similarities between any of the stories above and the stories of Jesus
Why? Do you assume I don't know of such similarities?
- Login to post comments
Offline Why? Do you assume I don't know of such similarities?
Because were having this conversation 
I'm not assuming that you are unaware of such similarities, I'm assuming that you haven't fully researched the similarities for yourself
? am I correct in this assumption
- Login to post comments
Offline wavefreak wrote:Why? Do you assume I don't know of such similarities?
Because were having this conversation
? am I correct in this assumption
I spent time looking into these similarities a number of years ago. It may be worth another visit, but it is not too high on my list right now. Something about Joseph Campbell and The Power of Myth comes to mind, among others.
- Login to post comments
Blaspheming Heretics and Misguided Christians? At one point in my life I was both! So Theyre both good things.
The worst are the "GUIDED" Christians Like Hitler.
High Pope
Hitler was a good christian but a bad person.
Hitler worshipped Aryans. I don't think he was Christian, although he may have pretended to be. You can't really call him an atheist either. Mostly just a madman.
Atheist Books
this has been debated in here quite a bit, but this is one of the many quotes that nails it for me that hitler was a christian:
"My feeling as a christian points me to my lord and savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who,God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the lord at last rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight for the world against the jewish poison...as a christian I have also a duty to my own people."
-Adolph Hitler, April 12, 1922
He was a horrible Christian.
Would an athiest that advocated the execution of theists be a good or bad atheist?
I suspect that the population of atheists is quite varied when it comes to their ethics and morality, just the same as theists.
My Artwork
An atheist that executes theists is certainly a bad person. But atheism is not a morality system or philosophy. That is, however, precisely one of the things that religions (including Christianity) claim to be.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
both can be "evil" depending on their actions. However with Hitler as much as many would love to say and make their case that he was misguided, i would say he wasn't misguided at all. He was merely following the thinking of the time when it came to jews and other undesirables. It isn't like most of Europe at the time (remember people this is early 1900's) had a favorable view of jews, gays, gypsies etc. His view was that the downfall of Germany was due to the Jews, and that as a christian (which he stated he was and many of his generals, and political peers viewed him as a champion of the christian faith) it was his requirement to get rid of the jewish scourge to make Germany in to a shining Chrsitian nation. Of course in his views jesus wasn't jewish either but a great arayan warrior.
However one more thing, a Blasphmeous Heretic, unless he has a big following with near religious zeal, rarely leads to the massive destruction that a "misguided" christian can do.
While the majority of atheists live with the guilt and subsequent burden of guilt of there unethical or unmoral actions. therefore they consider their actions and the consequences of their actions carefully. atheists tend to be very moral. relying upon the simple meaning of right and wrong that all social animals possess
The majority of Christians don't. Jesus forgives all their unethical or unmoral actions thus there is no burden of guilt. and a Christians idea of morality bypasses the simple meaning of right and wrong that all social animals possess. in favor of Biblical morality GOD's morality thus a Jehovahs witness will happily watch a child bleed to death Haemophilia. or the pope will happily condemned millions of Africans to a slow agonizing death AIDS by reaffirming that it is a sin "not Biblical moral" to use condoms. I could go on almost indefinitely with Biblical morality and the pain and suffering and death it causes. if you call your-self a Christian and support and encourage Biblical morality in our society. then please don't confuse morality with Biblical morality. and please don't imply that atheists are just the same as theists. morally this would be wrong
Please don't confuse me with whatever brand of Christians you are upholding as the archetype. Also, you don't have to look very hard to find Catholics that are pro-choice or use birth control. You are taking the things you find most offensive and generalizing them to all Christians.
You also don't apply Christian theology correctly. Forgiveness is not a license to continue in sinful bahavior. If fact, this very thing is addressed in the New Testament. Relieving the burden of guilt of past sins does not remove feelings of guilt attached to future actions.
My Artwork
wavefreak ALL brand's of Christianity are based upon the roman Catholic church. Christianity and the Bible were defined by the roman Emperor Constantine. all subsequent Christian spinoff religious movements were started from the Reformation. if you define what kind of Christian you are I can take you through the history of your spinoff movement all the way back to the roman Emperor Constantine. and subsequently through the Judaic religion which Christianity ( defined by the Roman Emperor Constantine) is based on. if you would like to put one form of Christianity above all the others as non-archetype then don't be shy. otherwise all Christians can fit in the same box. because you're morality is not you're own morality "the simple meaning of right and wrong that all social animals possess", it's biblical morality
The buying and selling of indulgences in the early Christian movement. would suggest otherwise
"Forgive me father for I have sinned". seeking divine forgiveness for unethical behavior shouldn't be associated with lessening the burden of guilt ?
Please elaborate on how this is not so in practical psychological terms
If you wish to know what type of "Christian" I am, then read my other posts. I'm tired of clearing up that misconception.
Constatnine, Council of Nicea, blah, blah. Christians are a rebellious lot. Many of them don't follow their leaders except when it suits them.
In my mind, the selling of indulgences was a form of evil.
"Forgive me Father for I have sinned" is an admission of guilt for unethical behavior not a license to be unethical. You seem to be saying that Christians woop it up all week knowing they can get "forgiven" on Sunday so it's all good. I know of few Christians that actually think this way. Many Christians try very hard to not commit what they consider sin. And when they slip, they feel a profound sense of guilt.
My Artwork
Still, that does not change two facts:
1. The whole doctrine is man-made
2. The Roman Catholics were the first, the others are changes and up/downgrades, so a very good question is: Since they were, in matter of doctrine, the closest to Jesus's times, what makes you so sure that YOUR cult got it right and not theirs?
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
i'm not sure if it's a question of whether hitler was a good or bad christian. what he was is the perfect example of that which atheists most vehemently despise; an evil, sadistic person justifying his actions with piety.
though george bush is obviously not in the same league as hitler, he too claims to be guided by a higher power, although most critics believe, rightfully, that this is just a front for his personal agenda.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
wavefreak I've only just read your signature
You think atheists get a bum rap? Try being a heretical theist for awhile. I get smacked down by atheists AND Christians. Maybe I'm a cognitive masochist.
And I've been reading your posts
You kind-of support Christianity although you don't agree with it absolutely. well it's not the gospel truth is it. thus you believe you are doing nothing wrong. because there is some good stuff in Christianity. are lives impact upon over lives. there is no action without consequence. even ones apathy will affect others. tacit support for a fundamentally wrong philosophy that actively causes harm to others is not ethical
Christianity from its concept to the present-day has impacted upon millions of lives. although some good can be claimed. the overall effect is detrimental
All attempts at changing Christianity for the benefit of society have failed it is sill detrimental and it sill actively causes harm to others
So wavefreak will you continue to give tacit support to something that harms others ? or will you try to change it for the better.
And at what point will your conscience or "the simple meaning of right and wrong that all social animals possess" spur you into a decision ?
My support for contemporary Christianity is very thin. I think that if Jesus were to visit the earth today he would be ashamed of what has been done in his name. Never underestimate the ability of humans to corrupt a good idea.
I submit that the only reason that there are no atheist wars to point to is that there has yet to be a truely atheistic society. And so far, the quasi-atheism of communism has as terrible a record as Christianity.
The idea that "Christianity is the root of all evil" is a red herring. That is what I take issue with. As long as there are people that love violence there will be atrocities - justified by the ideology de jour.
My Artwork
This is not a question of morality.
where you derive your definitions of what is good and what is bad is influenced in many ways by your faith.
we as athiests refuse to recognize your definitions of good and bad, and we disagree with your definitions as they apply to morality. Because they are based on your faith.
we as Athiests, in general, derive our foundations of morality based on our abilty to reason with a clear divider from faith.
we determine good and bad in terms of what is beneficial and what is harmful and who is benefited and who is harmed.
the only possible way to take your question seriously and give it any credence, and apply any semblence of reasoning to such a nonsensical stance, I think, would be to approach it from a prespective that (painfully) resembles Marxism and or Communism.
Who is fit to gain the most.
if atheists kill off all the theists then, sure, we'll say that is beneficial to atheists. So yes that would make you a great atheist, although incredibly harmful to humanity as a whole.
Enter Humanism: The Majority of atheist are humanists not Marxist or Communist, and if they are Marxist or Communist they most likely are humanistic versions.
if atheists kill off all the theists does this benifit or harm humanity? It would be nearly Unanimous that this would be detrimental to humanity!
Would it make you a bad human if you killed that many people?
Absolutely.
And none of us need your god to tell us this.
Its your side that advocated the deaths and tortures of thousands upon thousands of "Infidels" and "Non-Believers" and "Atheists"
So, justifiably, Given the examples above.
Any group who advocated the deaths of another group is undoubtibly evil and stands against humanity.
I take it a step further and say anyone who supports a group of people that advocate such a stance is also evil and stands against humanity........
YOU.
Most emphatically NOT my side. Violence in the name of religion is evil.
And there it is. The sweeping generalization.
I have ZERO tolerance for advocates of violence in the name of religion.
My Artwork