Calling oneself christian and declaring a belief in a christian god does not necessarily make one a member of that religion. It's one's actions that count. I don't think Hitler was truly christian, however, considering the christian church history of violence and persecution, I think he fits right in. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's not a source of valid information. In fact, the book consists mostly of lies and misinformation. I was actually disgusted to read it, and only did because I wanted to know what the man thought. Of course not everything a person says really reflects what they think, but sometimes their words are the only things we have. Maybe SkinWalker, Q, MedicineWoman are devout Christians who go to church everyday, and post here as atheists simply to have fun. Who knows? All we have are their words. My point was that you cannot question whether a pope is a Christian, it doesn't make sense. You cannot know what a pope, or anyone else, really believes, you can only know what they say. Hitler was definitely not an atheist. That alone means he was not only a bit of a Christian, but also a bit of a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, even a bit of a Jew. But this is all nonsense. I was simply refuting the stupid notion that his actions had anything to do with him being a Christian. That is just preposterous.
i think you're right, in theory. but with that statement you enter a huge grey area. if you can say - well a person might say they belong to a religion and cloak themselves in its symbols, doctrines, and traditions, but that doesn't mean they are really a part of that religion - how can you ever know if anyone is a "real" christian? you can't assume someone is lying about it just because they don't behave the same way that you would if you were a part of that religion. you also can't get into their mind and ascertain their true thoughts on the subject. in the absence of such proof, one has to assume that what a person says they believe is what they actually believe, especially if their actions are consistent with a possible interpretation of their proclaimed philosophy or religion. hitler was christian, it seems obvious. he may not have been what most people think of as a "true" christian, but so what?
right, so since we only have hitler's words, and those by and large indicate that he was christian, i guess we have to go with that. you are the one trying to deny it, not me. you were making the argument that we can't really take what hitler says in one place seriously because he employed so much propaganda to acheive his ends. then, in the same breath you used his words in mein kampf to indicate that he wasn't christian. that doesn't make sense becuase you can't have it both ways. right, thats what i was saying. hitler indicates his belief in the chrisitian god. so if you don't like his actions, and think that those are what makes him not a christian, then you have to apply that same thought process to everyone, including former popes. pretty much everything you say is preposterous. hitler used christianity to justify the final solution. he manipulated the belief that jews were responsible for the death of jesus as part of an effort to convince people that they were an acceptable scapegoat for their problems. if this had not been a pre-existing belief, hitler could not have used it to help support his advocacy of gruesome and violent genocide. hence, christianity plays a critical role in the holocaust, whether hitler truly believed what he said or not.
It is true that, unless their actions are consistent with their words, you can never really know for sure if people truly are what they claim to be. That only proves that applying labels to them, like saying someone's christian or not, is meaningless.
yeah, but try living in a world without any labels for anything. you can say that hitler at the very least used christianity for his own evil purposes. originally, this discussion was about something else entirely.
Hitler rejected Christian morality and claimed it was a Jewish invention. His own words. If we can still say he was a Christian, I don't know what the word "Christian" means anymore. Jews also believe in the Christian God. Are Jews Christians? He also manipulated darwinism. It's all there in Mein Kampf. So if we can blame the Church for Nazi atrocities, we can blame evolution theory even more. See how preposterous this blaming game can get?
i doubt you know what it means to begin with. Jews don't believe in the same god as christians. or else the two would be the same religion. christians believe that their god manifested himself in human form through jesus christ and that this god is made up of a trinity of concepts or entites, the father, the son, and the holy spirit. that doesn't sound like the jewish god to me. the theory of evolution and darwinism are not the same thing. in fact, darwinism was put to bed long ago more or less and has been replaced by a much more well-rounded and accurate theory. so that is pretty irrelevant. and i didn't blame the church for nazi atrocities, i said the fact that religion can be manipulated to serve such an agenda is one of the many ways in which it is flawed. darwinism was flawed, everyone admits that and because of it we now have a less flawed and improved theory. however, the bible and its core doctrines are changeless anachronisms that attempt instead to mold reality to suit the set of circumstances and way of life that they hold to be right. in addition to this, the documents and ideas are irrational, mistranslated, open ended and subject to an extremely wide range of interpretation. the fact that christianity has many sects that bitterly disagree (to the point of open warfare) on meaningless points of dogma and practice is proof of its inadequacy as a philosophy to live by. why don't you try paying some attention to what i've been saying.
Maybe it will help if you define it. You seem to know what it was that made Hitler Christian, though you admitted that merely calling (or even believing) yourself to be something does not make you something. The criteria matters. You say this as if you don't think one can know. Are you sure about that? Aren't there measures given in the Bible?
i never said that it was an issue that hitler was christian, he used christianity to incite support for violence and genocide. that simple. i was saying that i think its pretty suspect that hitler used so much christian rhetoric and mounted massive searches for legendary christian artifacts and then turned out to be a total non-believer. what exactly does it take to be a christian beyond thinking that you are one? how do you prove or disprove what someone believes privately?
He wasn't a total non-believer. But neither was Satan. You don't have to prove or disprove what someone believes privately. The point Jesus made was that your actions will reflect your true beliefs - the ones that come from your heart, not your mouth. "You will know the tree by its fruit..."
************* M*W: My words are my beliefs. My words reflect me. I am an anti-christian and an atheist. So, don't even think about putting me in the same sentence with any church! I am their worst nightmare!
thats a limited and immature way of thinking. the truth is that a persons beliefs are reflected through both thought and action. words are a reflection of thought.
That obviously follows. Words are just as much expression as actions. But what's the point of lying with your actions? You'd only lie to yourself or damage your ulterior cause. A thief who pretends to do good immediately exposes himself when he steals (a good person pretending to be bad is either undercover or in denial; the law doesn't distinguish between the crime of a good person and that of a criminal, in fact, it's only the law that makes anyone, good or bad, a "criminal"). Lying with words, on the other hand, is obviously meant to deceive those who hear them. Someone who contradicts his own words with other words confuses the issue; someone who contradicts his words by his actions clarifies the issue; someone who contradicts actions with other actions is either confused or a hypocrite. I'm just making an observation, and will of course gladly change my mind if you can reason otherwise.
Hardly, and often, not at all. When we act, we often act having a multitude of motivations. Psychologists say there is approximately up to 20 causes for each behaviour -- and if one investigates what has prompted one to act, one can verify this. So even the strongest cause often contributes only some 20 to 30%. Which is little enough to be skeptical about the idea of one cause ~ one action, and thus skeptical about our actions reflecting our "true" beliefs. Also, much of our acting is due to habit, things we do without actually having the present intention to do them. I find it disputable to call such acting deliberate, because it lacks present intention -- and with such a lack, it cannot be considered a conscious expression of belief or value.
That sounds reasonable. Which psychologists say that, however, and where? But that doesn't negate that most behaviors probably have one or two primary causes. If I look both ways before crossing the street, part of my motivation might be curiosity, but the biggest motivators are the fear of becoming a hood ornament and because the action was drilled into my head as a child. Ever play chess?
You're not alone, Christians everywhere argue that very concept. You've certainly demonstrated that. hehe
Do you mean "words" that would also appear in a book? The bible, for example? Perhaps you're one of those evil raving atheists having fun? All we have are your words.
