Do chistians see Atheist as bad people?

You would deny any work by a Christian as biased it seems.
Can't Atheist be biased? Apparently not.

Tsk tsk ender, freedom through scepticism, not cynicism.

I have seen no scholarly evidence to change my opinion that those words were accurately taken down and reported ender.

 

I'm quite familiar with Bormann and his Anti-Catholic views. I just find it fishy that Bormann goes against everything Hitler said in public and in his diary along with his policies.


Bormann even tries to make Hitler out to be an atheist yet in that same book he has quotes by Hitler calling atheism the return to the beast and various other quotes dumping on atheism?

He seems a little confused.


Hitler's table talk and other extraneous sources

by Jim Walker

Originated: 18 Aug. 2000
Additions made: 16 Sept. 2000

Red quotes= Hitler quotes
Green quotes= General quotes
Throughout the web pages on Hitler's Christianity, I have relied mainly on first-hand quotes from the infamous man himself: Hitler's book 'Mein Kampf,' his speeches recorded by camera, radio, proclamations, and letters personally written and signed by Hitler. I did not rely on hearsay accounts because those who admired or hated him had reason to embellish their own beliefs onto him. The best way to evaluate a person involves examining the words and actions of the person directly rather than indirectly from editors and hearsay accounts.

However, whenever addressing the history of Hitler, it would not deem fair to exclude mention of alleged sayings of Hitler, from apocryphal sources such as the "Secret Conversations with Hitler," "Hitler - Memoirs of a Confidant," Albert Speer's memoirs or "Hitler's Table Talk" (also referred to as "Private Conversations"). Mostly from the latter do opponents against Hitler's Christianity usually refer. For Hitler's Table Talk is the only source where one can find Hitler denouncing religion to such a degree.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hitler's Table Talk

Those who deny Hitler as a Christian will invariably find the recorded table talk conversations of Hitler from 1941 to 1944 as incontrovertible evidence that he could not have been a Christian. The source usually comes from the English translation edition by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, with an introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper.

The table talk has Hitler saying such things such as: "Christianity is an invention of sick brains...," "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death."

But those that argue against Hitler's Christianity fail to see that Christianity comes in many forms, two of which consist as: a belief system held by Christians, and organized religion. It was the latter, organized Christianity, that Hitler spoke against (just as many Christians do today). Not once does Hitler denounce his own Christianity nor does he speak against Jesus. On the contrary, the Table-Talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The Table-Talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

3) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his Christianity.

4) The Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.

Rest of the biased article can be found here:

Hitler's table talk and other extraneous sources


Christ was an Aryan, and St. Paul used his doctrine to mobilise the criminal underworld and thus organise a proto-Bolsevism.
-Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 143]

 

I dont really care about atheist go to haven or hell, since I dont belive in either of the two.
The real question is: Is it in the eyes of chistianity evil not to belive in the bible? And if not .........why bother trying to make us? We have all seen thouse streetpreachers preahing, and Jahovas Vhitnsses who knock on your door to spread there probadanda. Aperrently they must think atheists are bad people who need to be "saved" from the eternal flames of hell.

No?

Oh yeah, btw: Someone posted somewere in the start of the thread that religon and science can pefectly co-exist. If thats true, how come contryes that are ruled by religion (like Afganistan were) still live in the middelages!?

 

For the record these were Hitlers words as recorded by Bormann, he did not publish the book. He went missing in 1945 and was sentanced to death at nuremburg in abstentia and declared dead by the West German government sometime in the 70's.

As for your claims that Hitler was contradictory in his words.

Agreed.

Ender do be serious, Hitler took whatever fit his views from various sources be they Christianity, Astrology, Archeology, or anything else. You might as well call him Buddhist since he belived in reincarnation.
Taking his propaganda at face value would not doubt lead you to belive a whole array of things that aren't true.

Your source calls it Apocraph along with other works and then uses those other works to prove it's falsehood.

 

I agree Hitler was one screwed up dude. I think the article makes some good points though about him being a non-religious Christian. Why does he admire Christ so much?

Actually the article says that you could use Table Talk to support him being a Christian as he goes on about Jesus and never renounces himself as a Christian.

And reincarnation is in the Gospels of Thomas. The early church got rid of that though. Early Christian Churches that have been found in Rome have swastikas on them. Lots of Paganism in Christianity as well as we know.

From that same article:


Moreover, there are no known documents, speeches, or proclamations by Hitler where he even comes close to denouncing his belief in Christianity, or Jesus.

The Protestant and Catholic Churches in Hitler's time never accused Hitler of apostasy. Hitler's Christianity in Germany was never questioned until years after WWII and then only by Western Christians who are embarrassed to have him as a member of their faith-system.

The reasoning by the apologists in regards to the Table-Talk seems to be that because Hitler spoke against organized religion, then he must therefore be anti-Christian. But even if we take this simplistic approach and assume the Table-Talk as the actual thoughts and beliefs of Hitler, it fails for the simple reason that dismissing a religion of one's own faith does not exclude or excuse one from a personal belief as a Christian. A Christian is simply a person who believes in God and Jesus in some form or manner. Christianity, the body of believing people, simply does not require organized religion at all.

There are many examples of prominent Christians who denounced religions who opposed their own personal beliefs. Indeed, the Protestant reformer, Martin Luther who was once a Catholic monk, denounced the Catholic hierarchy as the work of the anti-Christ and establised by the Devil [Against the Papacy established by the Devil (1545)]. Yet I have yet to see a Lutheran accuse Luther as being a non-Christian. The history of Christianity is filled with examples of people of differing Christian faiths denouncing each other. I have personally conversed with many Christians who have denounced all forms of religious organizations, yet they have a strong belief in God and Jesus Christ.

Indeed, even the Table-Talk has Hitler saying:

Luther had the merit of rising against the Pope and the organisation of the Church. It was the first of the great revolutions. And thanks to his translation of the Bible, Luther replaced our dialects by the great German language! -Table-Talk [p. 9]

If simply speaking against a Christian religion were enough to oust one from Christianity, then some of the most influential Christians would have to reside with Hitler.

The papacy is truly the real power and tyranny of the Antichrist.... As beautiful as it was to keep a state of virginity, in the early days of Christianity, so abominable has it now become, when it is used as a means of eliciting Christ's help and grace. -Martin Luther (Luther's Confession, March 1528)

We maintain that the government of the Church was converted into a species of foul and insufferable tyranny. -John Calvin (The Necessity of Reforming the Church, 1544)

If we used the same logic of the apologists against Hitler, then we should remove Luther, Calvin, and many other prominent so-called-Christians from membership of Christianity.

 

As you yourself said, the Gospel of Thomas is Apocrapha.

Anyways, one cna admire christ without being Christian, if you belive he is the son of god or not it's hard to think of someone with a more far reaching impact on Western Society.

The closest I could come to associating Hitler would be nondenominational Christian.

In truth though it would be more fair to say he had his belief structure and adapted Christ to fit in how he wanted him to.

Edit// before you point out that that would still make him christian, in my opinion his view of Christs role was so far removed from what is considered mainstream as to defy describing them with the same word.

 

I agree he wasn't a normal Christian. But he thought he was a Christian.

Anyways, we'll leave it at that as we've hijacked the thread.

 

Hehe...

And to get back to the point.

I don't hate all atheists, just Ender

 

But Ronald McDonald likes me? If he likes me then everyone must like me, right? I question the logic of your hate.

 

Aperrently they must think atheists are bad people who need to be "saved" from the eternal flames of hell.

some may think that athiests are bad, and some may just think that they are misled. not that i condone either of those thoughts.


Oh yeah, btw: Someone posted somewere in the start of the thread that religon and science can pefectly co-exist. If thats true, how come contryes that are ruled by religion (like Afganistan were) still live in the middelages!?

don't generalize. that's like saying the amish represent christianity. afghanistan was lead by fundamentalists! would you say the same about israel? or the spain of franco?

first, that's more technology than science. and it's not purely the religion, it's also the economic status of the state. second, what was said is that religion and science can perfectly co-exist, not that they always do, or always are allowed to. some religions don't see the connections that allow it, and some don't want to see them. that doesn't mean that they're not there.

 

Yeehaa! Go MaidenLumpe for getting us back on topic! I tried, but everyone just ignored my post



The only thing worse than being a thread killer is being completely ignored...

 

Whereas the Bible is blatantly contradicted by scientific evidence.

Such as what contridactory evidence? -- leaving out the evolution of humans, since that is still a heavily debated issue amongst scientists (one proves one thing, then another proves something entirely different). Science has determined that the universe most likely evolved in the order which Gensis describes (but then you say "yes, but not in six days!", well, it is entirely possible that six days means six eras -- espicially considered the 7th day implies the time after Earth, after Earth has passed away, thus meaning, we'd still be in day six). Science has also proven that water did at one time cover the earth. And, the remains of a great army of Egyption chariats has been found at the bottom at the Red Sea where it is believed Moses parted the waters. There are actually many other instances of scientific discoveries validating the Bible, I'd have to do some research to dig the rest up, but if your interested, I will.


An Empire which was then crushed by Pagan warriors.

The Empire fell, yes, but Christainity continued to spread throughout Europe.

 

" Science has determined that the universe most likely evolved in the order which Gensis describes (but then you say "yes, but not in six days!", well, it is entirely possible that six days means six eras -- espicially considered the 7th day implies the time after Earth, after Earth has passed away, thus meaning, we'd still be in day six)."

Wow. Too bad "day" is defined as 24 hours. It's not possible that 6 days means 6 eras. They are not the same thing. This is the problem with christian apologetics. On one had you are trying to make the bible fit in with modern science, but on the other hand you are denying the truth of the Word of God by giving it meanings it never had. Tomorrow i'll work for 8 hours. Naturally, that means 8 centuries.

 

Cydonia the bible is open for interapritation.

If it weren't there would only be one christian church wouldn't there?

 

Uh, it could easily mean era instead of days. After all, would a "day" to God = 24 hours necessarily? I'm sure we've all heard the joke:

Clown: God, how long is a thousand years to you?
God: A minute
Clown: God, how much is a million dollars to you?
God: A penny
Clown: God, can I have a penny?
God: In a minute.

I mean, have you never heard of metaphores?? It makes perfect sense. Imagine you're God and you're trying to explain to some poor little ancient dude how the universe was created. Now, if You say "In the first 6.7 billion years, I did such and so" poor little ancient dude is just going give you a wild-eyed look and not even bother. It was written so people could understand. It was also not written to give us a history lesson (though much of it is historically accurate) but to TEACH. If God did not think it was necessary to divulge exactly how long everything took, he didn't have to. It's the same thing with extraterrestrials. People say "Well, it's not in the bible, so it can't be true." Well, if God decided poor little ancient dude couldn't handle hearing about other beings and that it's not necessary to his faith, God doesn't mention it. Anybody read C.S. Lewis' "Out of the Silent Planet"?


Once again, this thread has been hijacked. Sorry!!

 

Cydonia, there is one problem with that argument. Christ spoke of "eating my flesh and drinking my blood", and when the Jews thought he meant cannibalism, he got frustrated at them for not understanding his symbolism. Now, I'll admit, I am not sure why Christ didn't just spell it out (my guess is that he knew that if they didn't understand his symbolisms, they wouldn't truly understand his point if it was spelled out). And it was symbolism Jesus spoke of, not cannibalism, the Bible clearly states that.

So what is my point? My point is that the Bible has many instances of God (whether it be in Jesus's teaching or through prophets) speaking symbolically, so why should Gensis Chapter One be any different? How is that "stretching for answers"? If the common man thousands of years ago could not falthom what an Epoch was, why not put it in symbolic terms that human could understand?

 

"Uh, it could easily mean era instead of days. After all, would a "day" to God = 24 hours necessarily?"

Yes i've heard of metaphors.

If the bible is a metaphor, then fine. Is jesus' ressurection a metaphor? Is His divinity a metaphor? I guess what i'm asking in my own smart aleck way is: does god give us the authority to pick and choose what is metaphor and what isn't? If we feel jesus' divinity is metaphor, can we still go to heaven?

I'm just arguing for arguing's sake.

But still, think about what you are saying. Day and era are the same thing. Where in the bible does it say, "day means era."?

Hmmmmmm?

 

"If the common man thousands of years ago could not falthom what an Epoch was, why not put it in symbolic terms that human could understand?"

Wouldn't a year, or a century make more sense though? If you tell a common man from thousands of years ago that the earth was created in 6 days, he'll think "That's 6 sunsets. Not very long." Even if you say 6 centuries, he'll think, "Wow, that's forever! I can't even fathom such a big number!" (i don't think we can, either.)

Again, you make a good point about the blood and flesh of Christ. The point I'm trying to get across is where do the metaphors end? And who decides which bible verse is a metaphor?

 

But still, think about what you are saying. Day and era are the same thing. Where in the bible does it say, "day means era."?

And it doesn't, but I still say my above comments apply. Think about this, though, you're forgetting an important thing. Agreed that Gensis was writing thousands of years ago -- there was no way for man to know how the universe evolved at that time, yet Gensis has it pegged, in order of events.


if you don't have proof. and unless you've died and come back, you don't have proof. so a better rephrasing would be "but i don't believe that is true."

Are you suggesting I doubt the Bible?

EDIT -

The point I'm trying to get across is where do the metaphors end? And who decides which bible verse is a metaphor?

Ah, I see. Well, to be honest, I think that outside of early Gensis, it is much easier to tell. And for the shake of truth and knowledge and to beter understand God, does it really matter how long it took God to create the Earth?

 

That's wonderful, Stryphe. You could be right. But i ask you again, where and when do we stop re-defining the Word? It makes no sense that the world was created in 6 24 hour cycles, agreed. But the bible had it pegged, possibly.

It makes no sense that a human would be ressurected. Now if this means in the hearts of his followers Jesus was ressurected, then i can accept that. Is there a difference between my example and yours?

 

I've heard that in the original Hebrew, the word usually translated as "day" can also mean "period of time".
So it's not a matter of picking and choosing what's metaphor and what ain't, at least not in this case. It's a matter of mistranslation.

 

Or he could have showed him the creation of the universe in visions over 6 nights.

Hmm?

Do you even know when the word was handed down of how the earth was created? It wasn't written into a large leather bound diary.

Day after the day that came before:
Dear diary,
'Tonight god told me how earth was made, he's really neat, and powerful, got wierd rash from eating pork, god suggests i might want to stay away from that until sanitation is discovered, didn't quite understand but nodded anyways.'

The creation would have been an oral tradition dating back centuries, perhaps millenia. Over that period of time the story would have shifted some, no idea how much but it would have. I can not imagine God spending his time trying to get a prophet to meorize who begat who and how long they lived for millenia.

The New testament happened at a time when there already was writing there was literacy, the writes could talk to men with first hand accounts of the happenings, perhaps second hand, but not millenia of oral tradition which slowly changes.

Fidn a betetr way to play devils advocate.

 

"The creation would have been an oral tradition dating back centuries, perhaps millenia. Over that period of time the story would have shifted some, no idea how much but it would have."

Agreed. We disagree where you think your above explanation doesn't include the NT either.

"The New testament happened at a time when there already was writing there was literacy, the writes could talk to men with first hand accounts of the happenings, perhaps second hand, but not millenia of oral tradition which slowly changes. "

So you have evidence that the writers of the bible spoke with the apostles and others and recorded their words? Is this included with the non NT evidence of a historical jesus?


Find a better way to play christian apologetic.

 

Now if this means in the hearts of his followers Jesus was ressurected, then i can accept that. Is there a difference between my example and yours?

(First, I did edit by above post after I saw yours. The problem with posting an a message board )

Well, there is a key difference between this and Gensis. Please note, we don't know where the story of creation came from. Moses wrote it down, but where did he get it? From God himself? Maybe, or maybe from generations of passing the tale it down. Now, how does this tie into your question? Well, in the NT, we have witnesses who saw the events of Jesus's death and resurrection. Both Matthew and John were of the 12, they saw Jesus return, and wrote their accounts of him returning. They did not speak of the events metaphorically, but gave detailed accounts of interacting with Jesus. Now, if we were to say "oh, horse ####, they're lying" then we'd have to throw out the entire NT. We then couldn't believe a single word the 12 or any Christains who wrote the Bible. But, if we learned that the universe was created in 6 billion years and not 6 days, that does not change the mesage of God to the Jews or Jesus's message which came later. That's the difference.

 

"Both Matthew and John were of the 12, they saw Jesus return, and wrote their accounts of him returning."

You have evidence of this?