The anti-christian propaganda: Christianity, Hitler and Nietzsche

The anti-christian propaganda: Christianity, Hitler and Nietzsche


The most power tool in Hitler’s arsenal, for some, was the propaganda techniques he applied to keep his audience in complete awe and totally unaware of what was really going on the war-front. It was perhaps the effective use of this that he managed to keep Germany silent and going even after defeat looked imminent to the military brass.

Propaganda is indeed a very powerful technique, when a figure, usually a figure of authority rises up and tells people what they expect, you can score many points with them. Most of the time the audience swallows it hook, line and sinker. Mostly because they lack trust or are made to distrust other sources of information.

In the world of internet, propaganda is happening everywhere, from the brainwashed teenagers at westbro baptists to the hard core atheists – figures like Dawkins…you can very well implicate any group. The most astonishing is the constant barrage of senseless accusations, I keep getting from the “New Atheist” movement.

Contrary to popular belief  a lot of atheist are not militant,  a lot of atheists are disgusted by the new Atheist movement. I know a lot, who respect other people and their right to believe what they may. But there are many, who have found the internet as a venting ground and from what I assume to get attention and to rap about their new found philosophy, they place charges which are bizarre; myths that have no real grounds to stand on. And yet I keep hearing them again and again. A part of this is that the new Atheist propaganda technique which reiterates the main points over and over.

On the internet you need not a conspiracy, you only need repetitions  and what you get is a constant circle of bogus charges placed on faith, with no context and sometime little to no research. Frankly there are only handful of atheists who I have found to be realistic enough to handle the topic with wisdom. Most often lunge on emotional appeals, straw man, hatred and disdain towards faith, pain or traumatic experience. There is mostly a personal side to the obvious dislike. There is most of the times  a factor of “I was dealt a bad hand”  by life, fate, society etc. So who is to blame…God. Seems like the obvious choice because he is the ultimate- invisible scapegoat.

But even more popular is the “who has the most evil leaders?” game. This is played by atheists and theists alike.

Christians get credit for Hitler whereas the list of names on the atheist roster range from Stalin to pol pot.

My personal opinion is that as far as being Christian is concerned, Hitler is as much Christian as Dawkins is. Infact in an earlier post I demonstrated Hitler’s own quotes against Christianity.

Though there are other quotes too which are equally straight to the point, this  specific quote form Hitler says it all for me:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .” (p 278)

Hitler from Adolf Hitler, Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944.

But despite the fact, the average atheist insists with all sincerity that Hitler was a Christian…somehow implicating that it was Christian faith which made the Holocaust possible. For that to hold water you would have to invent a Christ who would have commanded people to kill. Much disappointingly there is none that fits that description  for the propaganda crowd to put the hat on.

But that is the power of propaganda, you invent fact based on nothing. And then you reiterate it over and over. So when a leading figure in the new atheist movement points out Hitler. The Average atheist takes it to heart, having no research done on his own.

If you look close enough you will find that Hitler actually followed Nietzsche’s philosophy to the tittle.  Nietzsche was very anti-religion, anti-faith and anti-christian.

Nietzsche’s had three main things to say in his philosophy :

1. That there was only one superior master race of human beings.

2. That Christianity was a “disease”.

3. That it was okay to kill as long as it helped you achieved the “right” end.

And Hitler was a firm believer in all three. Despite his various comments against Christianity, he literally proved the 1st and 3rd points during his years on the dictatorship.

Now a man who is a strict follower of Nietzsche’s, can not be possibly in any way, in the most wildest of conjured scenarios, be someone who follows Christs teachings at the same time. They are direct opposites. In legal terms it would be a “conflict of interest”. You can not serve two opposing masters.

So I would really like you all to take the time to think this and may be next time, do not repeat propaganda statements like this to provoke someone. Labeling anyone as a mass-murder supporter rarely helps. Even as you accuse each other of atrocities that personally, the theist and the atheist won’t ever conceive of doing.

And on a specific charge like this…well you will simply be wrong to do it. You would be saying something opposite to the truth. Hitler was not a Christian, don’t even entertain that thought.

Advertisements

42 thoughts on “The anti-christian propaganda: Christianity, Hitler and Nietzsche

  1. Greetings! Are you aware that Hitler himself claimed to be a Christian? Concerning Mao/Stalin/PolPot were they converting people to atheism or were they advancing their socioeconomic agendas? Lastly, Christians have no problem condemning people to eternal torture because a person does not share their worldview. Do you think the energy they are getting in return is a reflective reaction?

    1. So according to you. If you said you are in atheist. How would i know you are one. Obviously by your lack of belief. But if i found you praying to Jesus. Allah or any other. No matter what you claim you are. You are certainly not an atheist. The same way Hitler may say he is a Christian. Yet how would i know he is one. That is only if he believes in the teachings of Christ if he does not do that. Of course he is not a christian.
      Didn’t you read his quotes? Do you really think he favored Christianity? That seems so naive.

      1. You should take me at my word if I say that I’m an atheist and you see me praying it could be that I’m doing a thought experiment or a myriad of other things. If you tell me you are a Christian and I say you aren’t because you are not Catholic and Catholics are the only true Christians of course you would disagree with me.

        “Didn’t you read his quotes? Do you really think he favored Christianity? That seems so naive.”

        You mean the quotes like:

        “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
        fighter…”

        ““I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of
        the Almighty Creator.”

        “This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the
        practical existence of a religious belief.”

        “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”

        I really don’t think I’m being naive do you think you are?

        http://farpointe.wordpress.com/2013/04/12/list-of-hitler-quotes-he-was-quite-the-vocal-catholic/

        1. Also in the Old Testament millions were killed at Yahweh’s directive so what Hitler did was not unprecedented.

        2. Did you read the quotes in my post? You really think such contradictory statements match? But regardless of this. I know of no commandment of Christ which says to genocide. So whatever Hitler claimed i have to see whether it fitted Christ’s teachings. On that account Hitler fails on everything. So its really naive to link his actions with Christ’s teachings.

            1. I am afraid I am not going to make it that easy for you. I think you are really overlooking some crucial things. First what do these quotes of Hitler tell you?
              ****
              14th October, 1941, midday:

              The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

              21st October, 1941, midday:

              Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer…. The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work… for the purposes of personal exploitation…. Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

              13th December, 1941, midnight:

              Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. …. When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

              13th December, 1941, midnight:

              Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. …. When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

              27th February, 1942, midday:

              It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .” (p 278)
              ********

              There are more from where these came from. Now you grossed over my previous point, let me put it back. How do I know you are an atheist? Only when I see carry out your philosophy that you do not believe in any God/Gods…Now how do I test whether that Hitler is motivated by Christ’s teachings? Only when I see him carry it out. Since I do not…you claim does not hold water.

              Now if that does not make sense to you than it is your own dilemma not mine.

            2. So you really think and disagree with scholars that Hitler basically lied to everyone to gather support. That is simply a historic fact. I can’t believe you will take his political maneuvers to be something as true.

      2. Adolf Hitler, Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944. The veracity of this book is up for debate as, like the bible it has been translated edited and re-edited. Hitler never renounced his Christianity. Don’t disown him because you don’t agree with his brand of Christianity. Many denominations disagree and feel on is not authentic and the other is. There is massive amounts of pictorial, video and textual information available verifying his Christianity. Again I say you are in denial. Show me video, pictorial and textual information of Hitler’s mass program to destroy Christianity, to persecute Catholics, burn churches, and exterminate preists.

        1. You are committing a logical fallacy. The appeal to false belief consequence. It does not follow.
          You are still not digesting it. YOu can say you are a christian but it is by your actions that it can be seen whether you are one or not. Hitler may confess to anything. That doesn’t grant him any concession at all.

          1. You are making a judgement about a man who has stated that he is a Christian. You just don’t think he’s good one based on that judgement. Don’t you see that the same can apply to you?

            In Adolf Hitler, Monologue im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944.

            Where does he ever state that his is no longer a Christian?

            In Mein Kampf and countless speeches he has asserted his belief. I have provided evidence I don’t think you have.

            You have cited one source of his “table talks” in which he rendered his opinions(only) about Christianity and the church which have been translated into multiple languages, edited, re-edited.

            I don’t want to beat this to death. But I will accept him at his word that he was a Christian. Unless you can cite more that one source(actually only a few quotes) or at least produce more evidence I don’t feel you have made your case.

            It is actually you who has committed a logical fallacy:

            You have judged/concluded that Hitler was not a Christian based on your subjective opinion, even though it’s a FACT that he stated he was a Christian because that outcome is undesirable to you.

            APPEAL TO CONSEQUENCES

            (also known as: appeal to consequences of a belief, argument to the consequences, argument from [the] consequences)

            Description: Concluding that an idea or proposition is true or false because the consequences of it being true or false are desirable or undesirable. The fallacy lies in the fact that the desirability is not related to the truth value of the idea or proposition. This comes in two forms: the positive and negative.

  2. The new atheism is not about taking away anyone’s right to believe whatever they want to. On the contrary, (new) atheists tend to defend the religious freedom more than anyone else – because religious people often only defend it, if it’s their own religion – or if they benefit in another way from it, for example by gaining more support for special privileges for their own religion by fighting for another religion’s.

    And, let’s for a moment, accept the idea, that Hitler wasn’t a true christian ( he was a theist, at least). Unfortunately, this doesn’t change anything. The overwhelming majority of the germans and nazis WERE Christians. If you hear about a member of the SS who did something horrible, chances are big, that it was a Christian. “God with us” was on their belts. And let’s not forget the the church supported them often enough.
    No, nothing of that is enough to claim that they did what they did because they were Christians (or not). But their religion didn’t stop them from doing that. And let’s not forget that it was Christianity, who started more than 1.000 years of hatred against the Jews – which, in the end, lead to the holocaust as a very terrible result.

    1. I think this is very wrong. Religion stops no one. Who claims it does…no one. Why do you even expect that? Would it be fair to expect that atheism always results in peace? That is an unfair expectation. I think you still didn’t read that Hitler was inspired by Nietzsche philosophy. I still do not know of any Christ teaching which promotes genocide. Do you know of any?
      On one hand you want to be treated fairly with no stereotypes but you paint others with broad brushes. Christians killed. So what atheists did too. But that proves nothing. To argue this is moot and i cant see why you would do that.

  3. First of all: As long as there are humans, there will be no peace. But the existence of other reasons for war doesn’t make religion a good thing…
    And do I know any Christian teaching promoting genocide? The whole old testament, which still is the word of god for many Christians (otherwise they would have to stop hating homosexuals, what a pity)?

    1. I hope you realize that not everyone hate homosexuals. I also hope you realize that there is no command to genocide anyone? The whole old testament is a pretty big brush you used…have you read the whole O.T?

      1. “This is what the Lord Almighty says… ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

        Sodom and Gomorrah,

        The Flood?

        The Exodus.

        Numbers 33:4 For the Egyptians buried all their firstborn, which the LORD had smitten among them: upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.

        Numbers 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
        31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
        31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

        Your question:”The whole old testament is a pretty big brush you used…have you read the whole O.T?”

        1. Exactly…so first of all please cite sources as to your ‘millions’ claim. Second. Do you happen to know that Amalek actually attacked Israel first? That it was war? Third do you happen to know that there is a dramatic tone present in ancient accounts. If a captain tells his soldiers to invade a town and ‘leave nothing standing’. Does that mean they will saw down every tree or shoot every horse or donkey? No. When we say the whole world mourned the loss of lady Diana. does that mean every single person on the planet mourned? No. So its really ez to pickup the English bible and read it plainly. If you happen to know proper hermeneutics you would do very well.

          1. “Do you happen to know that Amalek actually attacked Israel first?” Ok so that makes the genocide ok?

            “That it was war? Ok so that makes the genocide ok?”

            “Third do you happen to know that there is a dramatic tone present in ancient accounts. If a captain tells his soldiers to invade a town and ‘leave nothing standing’. Does that mean they will saw down every tree or shoot every horse or donkey?”

            Actually Yahweh/God commanded the children of Israel to do these things and he told them to kill everything (even animals which have nothing to do with anything)! Yes they were supposed to do what he commanded unless you have a different interpretation of

            “Lord Almighty says”

            How about:

            Sodom and Gomorrah,

            The Flood?

            The Exodus.

            Numbers 33:4 For the Egyptians buried all their firstborn, which the LORD had smitten among them: upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.

            Numbers 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
            31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
            31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

          2. Do you believe Jesus has any connection to the old testament or do you just pick out the parts about the prophecy of his coming and his non-davidic lineage? Do believe in the Trinity?

            1. Let my reflect that mirror back. Do you happen to cherry pick parts of the Bible that you can use? or do you believe all of it is true?

              I mean are you claiming here that you beleive there is a God who sent a flood that wiped all of the planet? are you really claiming that?

            2. You are avoiding the question.

              “Do you believe Jesus has any connection to the old testament or do you just pick out the parts about the prophecy of his coming and his non-davidic lineage? Do believe in the Trinity?”

              If you don’t accept the Old Testament then this part of the discussion is over but then you would have to explain Jesus’s existence and legitimacy as the son of god.

              If you choose to throw out all the genocide, slavery, non-scientific, dietary laws, commandments etc. and just keep what you need to justify Jesus’s legitimacy then you are cherry picking.

            3. On the contrary you are here cherry picking. I am simply calling you to be consistent which you are not. Either you can use these accounts are present your argument on fact…but then you would have to agree that all of the rest is true as well. If you do not believe these accounts to be true, then I won’t allow you to use them to present a strawmen case.

              You are not allowed a double standard here.

            4. Some Christians cherry pick the Old Testament for the good parts and throw out the bad you are the first I’ve talked to to throw the entire thing out. Funny, when the new testament writers and referred to the scriptures or to The Law they were referring to the Old Testament not the New Testament.

              Throughout this discussion you never give straight answers. Simple yes or no questions are ignored. …One last try even though you have ignored my questions.

              Your questions:
              1. have you read the entire O.T?

              Yes I have and the New Testament as well.

              2. Are you aware of the classical defense of what you are attacking?

              I’m not attacking I’m asking for clarification…your defense is that the OT is trivial history. According the New Testament Jesus didn’t appear out of thin air. There is a historical line to the house of David and to the twelve tribes of Israel. You seem to be ignorant of the historical importance of this connection. You can not have Jesus without this foundation.

              3. Are you aware of biblical hermenuetics?

              biblical hermenuetics also known as biblical interpretations yes I know what they are and evidently there are many different interpretations within Christianity as you stated. It’s definitely not a science and it’s not consistent or else we would not have Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians. Baptist, Pentecostals,Methodists, Southern Baptist, Mormons, Scientologists, and your custom brand of Christianity. Each one of these are all experts in bible interpretation and they all disagree with each other.

              4. Numbers of people killed by Yahweh/God. Link provided with corresponding verses.

              http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/godkills.htm

              I see you have provided yourself an escape in face of biblical evidence.

              “Either you say the Bible is true and what is written is true as well. That is when I will take your question seriously. Otherwise why should I even entertain this when I know that to you its a fake book, written by people who invented the stories. And if it is not true than why should I defend that. My defense, and my effort to articulate it will have no result. In the end you can simply say its all fake so it doesn’t matter anyway.”

              Funny you say that to me and you believe the majority of it is relevant…it’..” OLD”, “hyperbole”, “ancient Jewish history” according to you.

              As far as Hitler’s Christianity is concerned I presented facts, you present judgement and opinion. I really don’t care if he was an atheist or Christian he was diabolical. I don’t condone his actions either way. What you have attempted to do is misrepresent him based on two or three quotes from one dubious book about his opinion of Christianity and completely ignored mountains of evidence to the contrary. You’ve done this because you don’t want him associated with your religion I’m sorry you can’t do that.

            5. I am not throwing it out because I want to or like to. You are again making a false fence. People often reject context and audience. A command to stone someone on sabbath is given to whom? you, me? No israel. Are you Jewish, am I jewish? No. then why would you take something and pertain it to me when its not given to me to begin with. Why would you even assume that? It may sound funny to you, it sounds illogical to me.

              If you had asked straight questions, I would have given you straight answers. You asked loaded questions and I showed you the fallacious reasoning you were employing.

              1. Thank you for clarifying that. Gievn what you said, it should be easy for you to follow what I am saying.
              2. My defense is straightforward as far as relevance of O.T in christian life is concerned. It is not for us. Simple as that. This does not mind Jesus ancestry at all. There is a reason it is called the OLD TESTAMENT. Why? because it was between the THEOCRACY OF ISRAEL and God.

              3. No. hermeneutics are not interpretations. hermeneutics show you how to interpret. There are proper methods, called exegesis and eisegesis and many more. There is no doubt a lot of christians have broken hermeneutics. Most often atheists unknowingly pick on the same. Bad theology makes most people atheist in my own opinion. But regardless of that, truth be told, there are very few people who take into account the full theological burden of hermeneutics and interpret. If you read your english bible and then come in on here and present your opinion. That is fine by me. You are no different than many christian pastors and lay people who do the same. And there is nothing wrong with that, to some decent degree. But as soon as you try to argument your way around theology, you must know what are you arguing for and against.

              There are only a handful of atheist in my experience, who I have found wise enough to criticize faith…that means other than googling up websites. And I am talking about the time when I was an atheist myself.

              4. Nothing I have given you is far from truth. All ancient writings carry hyperbole. Especially ancient Jewish writing. The point of these stories is filled with vivid, poetic references and sayings of the time, which when translated to english do not always convey the fullest sense of the words.

              Well take it as you will. On that I have no objection .Of course I do not want him associated with my faith. Why? because he is simply anti-faith on all levels. Second many people use this as sort of a venting excuse to accuse my faith of horrible acts. You paint us with a brush you would not want yourself to be painted with. I guess if someone accused atheists and associated them with stalin, you may feel good, by your theory he fits the bill and by your own method, the same you have applied here, he is as bit atheist as one can get.

              You can call Hitler a christian if that pleases you. I will hold my position. I’d quote Chesterton for you.

              “Standing in the church does not make you a Christian, anymore than standing in your garage makes you a car.”

            1. According to every Christian I’ve had a discussion with Jesus’s coming was talked about in the old testament. This link is to an apologist website: http://carm.org/prophecy-bible-and-jesus

              Here’s a verse:

              Born of a Virgin

              Isaiah 7:14, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

              Do you accept this verse as being factual,reliable and referring to Jesus?

            2. Again straw man and non-sequiter. Jesus legitimacy is not in question here. Stop using red herrings. You are totally unaware of biblical hermeneutics therefore you can not seem to divide what is teaching, what is not. Therefore you are making a false fence buster. Loaded questions is all there is.

              Let me ask you, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Let me know how would you answer it.

            3. You don’t like that question? It is from the Old Testament. It’s a very easy yes or no answer. Why do you avoid it?

              If I’m unaware of biblical interpretation ok enlighten me but please answer the question first.

              Here’s a verse:

              Born of a Virgin

              Isaiah 7:14, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

              Do you accept this verse as being factual,reliable and referring to Jesus? Yes or No?

            4. Here is the problem. I am not avoiding your question. I am saying you are asking the wrong question. The old testament is history…period. It not an active part of any teaching. Now even by the O.T standard…the 6 cannanite wars that you are referring to, form part of no teachings. That is my point. You are alluding that wars and genocide… horrible acts are somehow taught and promoted and I am saying no. You say well it is written. That is the false judgement. Just because it is written is not any standard to follow it. Not many people realize this, including Christians, that everything in the Bible is not for everyone, neither everything is good and also that not everything is condoned or that it is a command to follow. That is the distinction I am talking about.

              You probably think that you have gotten me cornered and therefore I must distract the situation. No. That is why I asked you “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”. You can see why even you won’t answer that because this is the wrong question to ask.

              I asked you a few things, you have given me no reply:
              1. have you read the entire O.T?
              2. Are you aware of the classical defense of what you are attacking?
              3. Are you aware of biblical hermenuetics…like everything you study, say english, there are rules, hermenuetics are the rules, which if followed will give you a more accurate picture of the scriptures. Without them everyone thinks they know what the Bible mean…and you get people with twisted ideas. No offense to you, this include many churches and Christians too.
              4. Please cite sources of your “millions” claim… obviously you cite the Bible. Truth denying is truth affirming. Either you say the Bible is true and what is written is true as well. That is when I will take your question seriously. Otherwise why should I even entertain this when I know that to you its a fake book, written by people who invented the stories. And if it is not true than why should I defend that. My defense, and my effort to articulate it will have no result. In the end you can simply say its all fake so it doesn’t matter anyway.

              I pointed out earlier
              1. That ancient writings carry hyperbole…you don’t seem to accept this. Nonetheless it is true.
              2. I said, if someone believes in Christ and his teachings, that is the only measure to call them Christians. If someone calls himself christian and does nothing which is remotely Christ like…well how can I call him a Christian. Hitler may say anything but born in a Christian family and calling your self christian by your very own mouth does not make you one. It has to follow with what you believe and how you carry it out.

              This is also the fallacy of appeal to false belief consequence which you are making? Did you see that? I won’t answer this because it is fallacious to begin with. The only reason I am writing this is because I think you are simply unaware of this.

              The most basic commandment of the N.T is “love your neighbor as yourself.” Tell me in your enlightened opinion. How on earth can Hitler be a christian if he does not believe in this little on? Or love you enemies? Or turn the other cheek? or bless who oppose you or blessed are peacemakers? These are the central, core tenets of Christian faith. You at least have to believe in these to be called a christian and I have every perfect valid evidence that Hitler believed none of this. Hitler actually followed Nietzsche’s philosophy. You really should do some research on that.

              Did you also know that Hitler lied to the whole Europe and got his war started. You simply are focusing on what his face in public was. That is what propaganda does and you are still falling for it. I am saying look under the hood. I don’t see a single thing being christian or pertaining to Christ.

              At the end , may be you will find it nice t have Hitler branded a Christian, even if it is for namesake, gives you more ammo, right? But it is in my humble opinion a very unfair projection. It is no different than me saying Stalin was an atheist, therefore he murdered millions. Atheists don’t like to associated with Stalin…why? because it is not a fair association.

              Good day.

        2. You haven’t asnwered my question…I asked you…please cite a source as to your millions claim?
          Are you saying here that the Bible is a FACTUAL RELIABLE SOURCE? Wow…you might wanna check that. Try again.

          1. ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

            Do you acknowledge that this is genocide?

            Please answer this question and I will provide the numbers with verses. My source is the bible.

            “Are you saying here that the Bible is a FACTUAL RELIABLE SOURCE?”

            You are writing a blog defending Christianity. I am not saying that the bible is a factual reliable source, I say it contains the sacred writings of Judeo-Christianity it is the foundation. Are you saying something different?

            Are you saying that it’s not a FACTUAL RELIABLE SOURCE?

            1. I already told you that ancient jewish writing carry hyperbole. You conveniently overlooked this point earlier. A writing like the one you cite, does not entail that every one was killed. It is just a way to describe “Complete victory” in ancient times. The equal of modern day usage would be “i can eat all the ice cream in the world”. This is a proverbial way to denote certain message. The ancient writings had their proverbial usages. And unless you are familiar with those. YOu will likely make erroneous conclusions.,

              So you agree that the Bible is a factual reliable source?

            2. Ok once again… My straight answer to your question

              “Are you saying here that the Bible is a FACTUAL RELIABLE SOURCE?”

              No.

              My question to you.

              “Are you saying here that the Bible is a FACTUAL RELIABLE SOURCE?”

              Yes or No?

    2. I always despair for humanity when I read atheists defending those societies in the Old Testament that worshipped their gods by sacrificing their children as live burnt offerings and subjugated women by the thousands as temple prostitutes while railing against God for holding those societies accountable. Most people in civilized society would rage against any neighbour who burned their children upon an alter, but apparently not atheists. Most people in civilized society would rage against a neighbour who held women captive in sexual slavery, but apparently not atheists. I despair for humanity because that kind of amorality is increasing along with the increase in the number of atheists.

    3. What an absolute crock. Christianity has standards a code of ethics that should be followed. Hitler did not turn the other cheek as Christ instructed. Also the OLD Testament is JUDAISM and NOT Christianity. Yes there is history between Christianity and JUDAISM. You will notice the polar opposite behaviour of God from the old Testament to the Gospels. There is mystery there verified by history. Eg the main Schism between Judiasm and Christianity occured via Simon bar Kokhba. Unike Jesus (the pacifist), Simon played the true role of a Messiah to the Jews. He took on the Romans and defeated them in battle and for a time, the Jews were in charge until Hadrian came along and changed all that. Simon killed Jews who saw Jesus as their Messiah and did not want to help him in defeating the Romans. Christianity has been perverted from its original form through the ages. Be it becoming more liberalized or used for imperialist gains. But one has to understand that and ISM is an idealogy/religion. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, etc, the suffering they inflicted by first, destroying the last Christian monarchy of Europe, then inflicting a war of athiestic propoganda on the peoples of USSR, Ukraine, Poland, Hungay etc etc. They even starved their own people to turn them against the church (telling them to ask the church to feed them). Atheism is no less a religion then any other. It is followed by people who mostly have very little FIRST HAND knowledge of science other then the junk they see on TV or what they are brainwashed with at school. But here is the very important part. The USSR used “science” and “technology” in an effort to defeat Christianity. They taught children at school that God is a myth and religion is false. This all going back to Karl Marx who by the way was a very ardent supporter of evolution, for obvious reasons. At the end of the day you only need to look at the USA and how rapidly its culture has changed to reflect whatever Hollywood wants it to be. But I will give you some tips on where to start researching. Look at what lobby groups changed the immigration policy in the USA after forty years of battling the courts etc and finally succeeding in 1965. Same lobby groups suceeded in doing the same in Sweden, Germany, Australia etc. Hint, multiculturalism MUST be embraced by Europe but multiculturalism would threaten the Jewish identity of Israel. And yes there is a very important part here, because many mass murders who were Russian Jews like Lazar Kaganovich, got away with it. And they made Hitler look like a carebear in comparison. You see this very same group did not stop at they USSR, they spread to Germany via the Frankfurt Institute then spread to New York when things got dicey in Germany. Watch Bill Mahar or any other Hollywood drivel to open your eyes. But at the end of the day some are athiest via very commie like indoctrination. Others are atheist by choice, science has very little to do with it.

  4. I’ve been thinking about this discussion since the last exchange. It reminds me so much of what I experienced growing up in a Christian home and attending church. The main thing that turned me off was the games that the ‘leaders’ played when you asked straight forward questions. Most times they feigned higher knowledge, posturing that they had access to higher levels of understanding than the rest, at other times they shifted the ground or would not answer because it wasn’t the ‘right’ question, they would bombard you with questions or just outright ignore your questions. I came to the conclusion as a younger man that they just didn’t know what they were talking about. What these men believed was not on sound and rational footing so they bluffed. When confronted with facts and logical lines of thinking they would fold. I notice the similar elements in my conversation with you.

    Examples
    “Here is the problem. I am not avoiding your question. I am saying you are asking the wrong question.”

    ??? How is this an honest discussion when you use a phrase like this?

    “The old testament is history…period”

    This shows complete ignorance of the foundation of Christianity and it’s origins. In the book of Matthew alone there are 102 direct quotes and references to the Old Testament. When the New Testament writers quoted scripture they were not quoting the New Testament, they were quoting from the writings already in circulation…The Old Testament! The very acceptance of Jesus as a savior is that he is from the house of David. At the beginning of the gospels there is a lineage leading back to the house of David, there is a reason for that. http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/misc/quotes01.cfm#Mat

    “Not many people realize this, including Christians, that everything in the Bible is not for everyone, neither everything is good and also that not everything is condoned or that it is a command to follow.”

    Under what authority do you have to make this statement? What special knowledge do you have that not only Atheists but other Christians don’t possess? Where and when was this revealed to you?

    I answered every one of your questions yet you ducked,dodged and avoided mine, because they weren’t the ‘right’ questions, they were ‘loaded’ or it’s a link posted from another site, etc.

    If you are going to invite discussion, open and honest debate please do so because my impression is that you are not doing that, at least not in this discussion.

    I submit this comment respectfully and I appreciate the time and thought you put into responding to me.

    Thank you

    -Shelton

    1. Shelton, my apologies for the late reply, got stuck in things badly.

      I am sorry if you feel that I have been dishonest in our conversation. Despite my best tries to show you the problem, the presumptions you were carrying, I have ended up at making it seem that I have been dodging your questions. let me break this up for you.

      On one hand you expect me to simply agree with you when you say the word “genocide”, I ask why? because you think you are right based on what you read in the English language. Why do you think you are right to begin with? Couldn’t you be a little wrong?
      I have tried to convey to you that there are points you are overlooking. Please read my posts again. especially the proverbial dramatic tones of the O.T.

      Yes, I did stop you from using the Bible as evidence. why? because I am also not allowed logically to use it either. This is only fair. Either we both use the bible as something authentic or we both don’t. If you see my posts I didn’t give you any references, anything at all from the bible because whatever I quote is “from the Bible”, it can be dismissed since that Book will obviously side on my side of the argument. Once I start picking and pasting verses like you are doing, we will end no where.

      I have said that you used a broad brush, you have. All of the O.T is history. It is not Christ’s TEACHING. I do not know why it is so hard to understand. To equate the O.T law teachings to Christian teachings is a theological blunder. And while there are people out there who follow the easy of the O.T laws. they can not theologically put it together that they must follow the O.T. It can’t be done.

      My saying to you that you are not aware of hermenuetics is a simple fact. The way you argue shows you do not know about it. While this may sound as I am trying to underestimate your intelligence. I am not. I am simply saying, that to study anything (even a subject as ancient Egyptian myths) you need to follow a discipline something of a check which shows that you are not reading something the wrong way. People, most Christians top that list, do not go deep into such things and study. They simply don’t. And ex-Christians like yourself are doing the same thing. I was raised the same way btw.

      For example you claim that my saying that O.T is history…”is a complete ignorance of the foundation of Christianity and it’s origins.”

      Well, prove it to me. How does what I say make the O.T untrue? There is nothing I have said that says so. When I said, its history. I acknowledged that it is true. I am not denying the reality of that. I am simply saying it is irrelevant in teachings to the Christian model. This is the point you have a problem in accepting. May be you were taught differently, I do not know but you can always ask and I will be more than glad to help you on that front.

      The authority claim is simply absurd. To be frank I can assert right back, what authority do you have to claim on something you haven’t studied as in deeply. I am not doing this but just saying, if you want to question authority you can always find something to do that. That is the easy thing to do.

      The more important question is, can you authentically critique of shakesperean literature without reading everything there is to know about it? Would you require formal education? would you require help? would you require a discipline, something, tools, etc to make it easy for you to read and understand the context the audience things like that? Do you think it is a viable, method?

      Much of the Bible’s message is simple and clear and a lot of it is also ancient and needs to be understood in contextual manner. Without the proper hermenuetics anyone can read into it and extract whatever he/she wants to extract. Take the westbro bapstists. They say they are Christians and then claim “God hates fags”. Calling yourself christian, does not make you one. Picking and pasting verses does that and a lot of reformed churches follow that model. It is not bad but it can lead to you error filled results because building a case on verses only gets you that far. A proof text approach. And while this may be handy in some cases. It usually ends in problems. This is why I said I lot of Christians do that, and atheists do it too.

      Infact, the bible is not as important as people have made it. There is no consideration into the nature of God itself. most People just proof text their way around things. But those who do understand the nature and love of God, will take all verses with the guidance of that love. And if it fails that test than nothing is of value. The bible just becomes a book, nothing else, of no value whatsoever.

      If you have a special point which you think needs addressing, please put it forth. and if you disagree than please also see to it why am I saying any different. Is it because I am proud and trying to be holier than you…or may be, just may be, I may be right and sincerely trying to help you. I can assure you its the latter. You can search my blog for old posts and you will find that I go along pretty well with atheists and agnostics. Some of my best readers are atheists and agnostics. And I am certainly not trying to ditch you around or something…my points still stand though.

      ps: do you know about OLD earth creation?….do you know about the Noah’s flood being more local than global. I would suggest you look into that too. see below for link.

      There are many many folks out there who don’t believe what you are saying we do. Please respect that. see the link below. In fact I would suggest you join their forum. It is one of the best forums on things that are christian and you want to ask around what they think. You can debate and argument there.

      http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

      (forum)… http://discussions.godandscience.org/index.php

I'd love to hear your thoughts, feel free to leave a comment. Thank you.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s