"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote

AlEvan wrote:

"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote

AlEvan wrote:

Hitler, on the other hand, was the new Christ.

No, he was just Hitler.

The old one was in the past. Hitler defined what
the beliefs of the Nazis were. He did not loose
a Christian army on Europe, but a Germanic one.

Here's a research project for you; what did it say
on all the belt buckles of Hitler's army?

Therefore, he was not a Christian.

He was christian. Get over it. No one is trying to
claim that he represents all of christiandom, or
even a few christians.

What does it matter what was on a Nazi soldier's
'belt buckle?'

It matters. I assume that you are afraid of what was on
those buckles and will not look it up for yourself.
For your future information, those buckles said, in
German; "God Is With Us." Of course they were referring
to the christian god.

Huge non sequitur snipped.

All this because of a stupid 'belt buckle!'

It proves that it was a christian army. The leader, and
majority of the personnel were christian. Hitler was
christian and you've shown nothing to disprove that.

The "[h]uge non Sequitur" that you conviently "snipped"
proved that, just because someone advertises something as
so, does not make it that way.

David,
The "[h]uge non Sequitur" that you conviently "snipped" proved
that,
just because someone advertises something as so, does not make it that
way. The last declarative sentence sentence of my response summed it
up: "The fact is that 'belt buckles'--like billboards, constitutions,
and claims to mere
'agrarian reform'--prove nothing."

You did not respond to my critique. You responded to what you
want the critique to be about, because it fits your pre-conceived
notions about what was really happening in Nazi Germany--that it was
merely Christianity against the Jews, again.

I am arguing that Hitler was the Supreme Leader: Wasn't that
what the Nazi salute, "Heil, Hitler!", was all about? They didn't go
around saluting, "Heil, Jesus!" I am also saying that there was also
a problem with the psyche of the German people, themselves, at that
time: They were insane with anger at the outcome of WWI--and the
perceived injustice of the Armistice forced on them by the
Allies--especially France--that drove them into poverty.

The German people wanted someone to blame. They wanted to
believe that "traitors" caused the defeat of WWI. That, their latent
anti-Jewishness, and the German ego, gave credence to Hitler's
ramblings about Jews, and traitors, and "inferior races."

At that time in their history, their "god" was Adolf Hitler, not
Jesus Christ. They followed Adolf Hitler, not Jesus Christ, into the
murder and destruction of WWII. That's what their belt buckles were
really all about. That's who the 'god' was that their belt buckles
talked about.

I think you are correct if what you are saying is that there has
always been, and still is, an anti-Jewish sentiment in European
culture. This sentiment, however, did not begin with the Christians,
but with the pagan Romans. It carried over, through the
Christianization of Rome, and Rome's collapse, and through the "Dark
Ages." It is an insidious part of Western Culture, and rears its ugly
head just when you think we've outgrown it: Consider Jacques Chiriac,
the president of France, describing Isreal: "...that shitty little
country!"

adolph.evangelista@ps.ge.com (AlEvan) writes:

Dave,

Your definition of what a Christian is does not match 2000 years
of Christian thought.

I hope you realize that this Dave is different than me
and his comments aren't related to mine posts.

In any event, I don't know if there's such a thing
as 2000 years of christian thought, since christians
disagree widely on many theoligical points.

From the very begining, in order to be defined
as one, a proselyte had to...

According to whom? Is there a handbook of criteria
to qualify to be a christian that all christian
sects acknowledge are correct and that if someone
believes all these points, they are a christian,
but if they don't believe 1 or more of these points
they are not a christian?

Such cannon doesn't exist, each sect may have their
own view, but there is no joint unitarian view. You
really are being dishonest if you think you get
to decide if someone else is a christian or not.

Furthermore, it don't matter what I think myself to be!

Yes it does with esoteric concepts like religion, you
should be able to grasp that. They aren't quantifiable
like size.

I may think myself no larger than a gnat, and act that
way and hide in fear of being crushed--but that don't
make me a gnat.

Not relevant, its not a personal belief, it has objective
evidence that can be used. Closer example would be that
if you told me you believed "Santa Claus" existed, I
couldn't tell you you didn't believe in him. Even if you
had the radical belief that he gave gifts to Jewish
children too (you heretic, lol). I certainly couldn't
call you "asantaclaustic", I may disagree with your
view on santa, but you clearly believe in him and
are a santaclaustican :).

That makes me insane. Just so with Hitler and his
statements that he was a Christian (or Catholic).

So wrong, just because his view of being a christian
or catholic doesn't jive with yours doesn't make yours
right. Plenty of christians would say your christian
beliefs are wrong, but that doesn't make them right
either. You don't get to decide who is and isn't
christian, its up to each person to decide since
there's no objective measurement.

In short, its clear he believed in god, which you
claimed he didn't. Its not relevant that you
disagree with his actions on behalf of that belief,
he would have claimed that you were wrong too...

Hitler made himself god. Is this contrary to atheistic belief?

I don't understand the question, there is no such thing
as atheistic belief. Atheism is merely the lack of belief
in a god or gods. Atheists have many beliefs, but aren't
unified in them at all, they are only unified by what
they don't believe.

Some atheists go a step further and say there isn't a god,
but not all, some atheists use Tide detergent, but not
all, etc. There is not a single atheist creed or point
to agree to.

So they are only joined by what they are not, not what
they are, individually they are quite different. I
don't know race you are, but say you aren't caucasian.
We could invent a term for everyone who isn't caucasian
(say acaucasian), but acaucasians have nothing in
common, except what they are not. Same with atheists.

Your comment above and your comment that Hitler is an
atheist, shows a complete lack of understanding of
atheism.

Asked once whether Hitler or Stalin was worse,...

Personally I don't care, nor do I care about their
theism stance. I only care that you lie about it.

You seem to think that a leader's theism stance
says something about the validity of that stance,
it doesn't.

Hitler was theistic and did lots of bad things in
the name of that religion. I am just as sure that
there have been atheistic bad leaders too. In
short Theistic != Good person and Atheistic !=
Bad person. There are many good and bad people
in both groups. Hitler is a good example of a
bad person who was a Theist.

As always any opinions I may have written above are mine and mine alone.

Dave.
*********************************************************<

On 16 Oct 2003 05:38:31 -0700,

So, you argue that the Catholic Church, by signing an agreement
with Hitler, was only concerned with its own members' safety, and also
gave Hitler international status. What is your point??

That the Catholic Church, by signing an agreement
with Hitler, was only concerned with its own members' safety, and also
gave Hitler international status.

The Church had/has no control over what a people does with the
power placed in their hands.

It has in many developing countries and controls laws where it still
can.