You mean the Kings James version of the Bible?

1st-century 27 Books of the New Testament (IN GREEK)
4th-century Translated to Latin Vulgate (IN LATIN)
1000 AD Translations of The New Testament (IN ANGLO-SAXON)
1455 AD Gutenberg printing press (IN LATIN)
1522 AD Martin Luther's German New Testament (IN GERMAN)
1526 AD William Tyndale's New Testament from Vulgate (IN ENGLISH)
1568 AD Bishops Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH)
1611 AD King James Bible Printed (IN ENGLISH) (80 books)
1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769 KJV revised
1885 AD "English Revised Version" Bible Revision of the KJV. (IN ENGLISH) (only 66 books)

They were just as often called Nazarenes.

Do you realize anyone called a follower of the Messiah would basically be considered a lunatic, since the Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah and it had a different meaning. It is basically like being a Raelian.

Can someone explain how if it is the magic word of God, can you just remove 1/4 of it? And just pretend we won't read these parts anymore after they were in there for almost two centuries? Some magic powers the God has, he can't even keep his Words from being censored.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You, sir, don't know much about our history. btw, the word Christian appears in the bible

the only way and i mean the ONLY way a peaceful protest by way of civil disobedience will EVER get any traction is by clogging the machine ie:blocking business,traffic and everyday functioning of not only government but everyday business.
this is not my opinion but historical fact.
see:
martin luther king.
vietnam protests of UC.
civil rights protests.
the triangle shirtwaist factory and the consequent protests for labor and the fight for unionized labor.
and these are just a few examples off the top of my head.the list is massive and does not only pertain to america but in america we have the RIGHT to assemble and the RIGHT of redress.
these protestors want to be arrested.
they want the state (in the form of police) to overstep,brutalize and abuse their authority in order to get the message out by way of conflict made violent by the people sworn to protect and serve.
every time the police (be they individual or enmasse) perpetrate violence on peaceful protestors that protest swells in numbers in a matter of days.
this was evident in the 1920's and it is evident today.

the problems of understanding arise when people give their power over to the powerful.they acquiesce to the very powers seeking to disempower them.
so we get things like "free speech zones" which are far away from the very thing being protested and most certainly no where near any business or government functions.

this is not a lib/repub issue but an american issue.for decades the government has slowly chipped away at our civil liberties and given more power to itself.this is what governments do,this is what ANY powerful institution does=keep itself relevant and IN power and the ONLY thing power fears is?
the people.
again,not my opinion but historically accurate.

this is about challenging authority.
you say that when a policemen gives a "lawful" order to disperse that should be the end of it.
i say:i question your "lawful order" as it hinders my right to assemble and give my government a redress of my grievances.
that policemen is ordering me to give up my right of redress and that is a right i will not give up.the authority of that policemen has been bestowed "by the people".the very government in which hands down orders to that policemen has been elected "by the people",and they were elected to create laws and govern "for the people" and when that machine no longer "serves the people" it must be resisted in the only way that has been known to work:
shut down the machine,
because "the people" are not multinational corporations with deep pockets who can influence legislators by way of lobbyists.we cant purchase the kind of time that a corporation can to make our case to a senator or congressmen.we cannot influence public opinion by way of tv commercials or entire networks.
but we CAN sit and stop traffic,or slow the flow of business and THAT is when they take notice.
and the response is always the same:
ignore.
and if that doesnt work?
ridicule.
if that fails?
co-opt in any way possible (see:tea party)
cant co-opt?
oppress,bully and intimidate by authoritarian means.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

Hypothetically, @quantumushroom, what if there were a religion that stated that white people are the true master race? Would you support their right to preach this? Their right to tell black people that they should try to be white and to try to get Asian people to go to a correction school to bleach their skin? I don't see the push for gay rights as any different to that trendy Martin Luther King and his communist buddies.

The issue of free speech is an awkward one. I think you make a powerful argument against free speech but I do believe in free speech despite your worst efforts. I suppose the thing is that you can say what you like, but that doesn't mean you should. Maybe you can legally preach bigotry - and that's what you are doing - but you should think about what you're doing and stop doing it.

>> ^aurens:

A short and varied list of Americans educated in public high schools before the creation, in 1980, of the Department of Education:
Steve Jobs
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Ron Paul
Warren Buffett
Toni Morrison
Carl Sagan
Ernest Hemingway
Linus Pauling
Sandra Day O'Connor
John Steinbeck
Bob Dylan
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Milton Friedman
Noam Chomsky
Oprah Winfrey
George Lucas
Jimmy Carter
Paul Newman
Amelia Earhart
Walt Disney
George Carlin
Elvis Presley
Neil Armstrong
Richard Feynman
Aaron Copland
(I could keep going, but I'm sure you get the point.)>> ^ghark:
No public education ... Sounds exciting.



Aye aye, was being sarcastic

A short and varied list of Americans educated in public high schools before the creation, in 1980, of the Department of Education:

Steve Jobs
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Ron Paul
Warren Buffett
Toni Morrison
Carl Sagan
Ernest Hemingway
Linus Pauling
Sandra Day O'Connor
John Steinbeck
Bob Dylan
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Milton Friedman
Noam Chomsky
Oprah Winfrey
George Lucas
Jimmy Carter
Paul Newman
Amelia Earhart
Walt Disney
George Carlin
Elvis Presley
Neil Armstrong
Richard Feynman
Aaron Copland

(I could keep going, but I'm sure you get the point.)>> ^ghark:

No public education ... Sounds exciting.

I thought it was pretty well known that the Kennedy era changed the polarity of the Democrat/Republican opinion in regards to social issues.

That should mean that appeals to pre-1960's inconsistencies are pretty much baseless. Maybe this is too complex a notion.

>> ^bobknight33:

So the poor are poo because of wall street? What BS.
Herman Cain is a bad apple because he not a Democrat. IF he was a Democrat and speak the raciest democrat trash that Democrats use to keep blacks down then he would be a good guy. Blacks have been Republicans all the way up till the president Kennedy. Dr. Martin Luther King was Republican. The Democrats have done more harm to the black man than any other group through social enslavement. Not to mention that Democrats started the KKK. If I were black why the heck would I be a Democrat? Herman Cain is a black man who sees through such bunk.

So the poor are poo because of wall street? What BS.
Herman Cain is a bad apple because he not a Democrat. IF he was a Democrat and speak the raciest democrat trash that Democrats use to keep blacks down then he would be a good guy. Blacks have been Republicans all the way up till the president Kennedy. Dr. Martin Luther King was Republican. The Democrats have done more harm to the black man than any other group through social enslavement. Not to mention that Democrats started the KKK. If I were black why the heck would I be a Democrat? Herman Cain is a black man who sees through such bunk.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Martin Luther King managed to create protests and a movement that DIDN'T get in people's faces or disrupting the business of innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with what you're protesting. He did it with a positive, uplifting, inspirational message that people of good sense could not help but agree with. These yahoos are doing the exact opposite. They couldn't be driving people AWAY from their cause any better if they were trying.


wrong wrong WRONG!
martin luther king jr knew full well the only way a peaceful protest would be effective was by interfering with business.
any protest that was even moderately successful interfered with business and the everyday machinery of government.
now we have "free speech zones"(see:RNC 2008 st paul MN) which are many times far distances from the very thing being protested.....how convenient.
this is where the protesters can be marginalized and ignored but get in the way of everyday business and NOW you will get noticed.
and the government will send its goons in to strong arm and intimidate because the business class scream bloody murder.
there will be arrests.
there will be macings.
there will be violence and yes,even sometimes murders.
all of which can now be clandestinely videotaped from a phone exposing the strong arm tactics of the government all in the name of "keeping the peace".

this aint rocket science.it is effective and it works.
your obedient slave solution just leaves the protester flaccid and ineffective.
you have the RIGHT of redress.
you have the RIGHT to assemble.
and the police are within their powers to cite or detain you for civil disobedience.
they are NOT within their powers to:maim,torture,brutalize and disregard the laws in which they were sworn to uphold.
this is about challenging power and authority and the only way to do that properly is to disrupt the machinations of power and authority.

That's a most excellent answer and I agree with every word of it. Faith is a gift from God, and even the act of turning towards Christ is by the work of the Holy Spirit. I was urged by the Spirit to say what I did, so I assumed it was for a reason. I feel God blessed it, and that it was His will. You're right that it would be impossible for someone give their lives in totality without being reborn, however, I put that out there that that is what God wants, and even the intention of doing it is useful to God. He could use that and support it and make sure it happens. People do drop to their knees and give their lives to God every day, and whether it is from going to church or seeing a message like mine, whatever it is, I know it is all by the grace of the Spirit. So we're in full agreement, which is odd if you're not a Christian. How did that happen?

>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
It seems to me that one of the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity is the belief that humans are incapable of being totally committed to the service of God, of worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth, or even of having faith at all prior to their regeneration and new life in Christ. To suggest that it is necessary (and therefore possible) for us to make a total submission of our will to the will of God before we invite Christ to enter our life and take over is to put the cart before the horse, for the very reason we need Christ to "take over" our lives is the fact that we are incapable of obedience (willing submission) on our own. If we could do it before receiving divine assistance, we could do it apart from divine assistance, which renders Christ unnecessary, which no orthodox Christian would ever affirm. In fact, we cannot even be willing to submit (which, to be sure, is different from willing submission) prior to the reception of grace. To think otherwise is to fall into the heretical trap of Pelagianism, which has been condemned among orthodox Christians since the 4th century.
And so, Augustine argues that if, as the Bible says, God creates in the believer a new heart to replace their heart of stone, then we cannot assume "without absurdity" that "there previously existed in any man the merit of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his stony heart, when all the while this very heart of stone signifies nothing else than a will of the hardest kind and such as is absolutely inflexible against God. For where a good will precedes, there is, of course, no longer a heart of stone."
...which is why Anselm prays "Teach me to seek you, and reveal yourself to me, when I seek you, for I cannot seek you, except you teach me, nor find you, except you reveal yourself."
...and Aquinas reasons "a man cannot turn to God except through God turning him to himself."
...and Luther writes a whole treatise on "The Bondage of the Will"
And, to be sure, they all consider themselves to be drawing logical conclusions from what they read in the Bible, quoting passages like:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44)
"You did not choose me, I chose you" (John 15:16)
"Without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)
"Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned." (Lamentations 5:8)
"By grace you have been saved, through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
So, in sum, orthodox Christians have, for at least 1500 years or so, agreed that there is nothing humans can do on their own to prepare themselves (i.e. be worthy of) the reception of grace(i.e. to have a new life in Christ in which he "takes over") -which is precisely why Christians have no reason to boast. To say we must do something first, whether it be "to believe" or "have faith" or "be willing to obey," before we can receive grace (a life in Christ) is to treat grace as a reward, which no orthodox Christian would maintain. I'm sorry to say, what you have asked of us is not only impossible, it appears to be unchristian (which, to be fair, I'm sure was not your intention).
I applaud your desire to share your faith. I encourage you to learn more about it.
>> ^shinyblurry:
The reason I said that is because God requires a total commitment. God is looking for people who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth. So, if you're half-hearted about it that isn't going to get you anywhere. God will provide the evidence that He is there, but you have to be willing to give your life to God first.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
So...doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery?
For curiosity's sake, why shouldn't I ask Jesus to take control of my life if I'm not ready (i.e. what would be the negative consequence of doing so)?
>> ^shinyblurry:
There is only one way to eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ. If you want to know Him, find a quiet place and pray that He enter your life, and let Him take it over. Don't make the request unless you are willing to turn yourself, and your life completely over to God. God bless.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
>> ^vaire2ube:
imagine the double rainbow!!
he says we should accept our mortality, but stopping aging and melding minds with technology to live forever is kinda my hope. I enjoy watching this all unfold and id like to continue to.

It seems to me that one of the basic tenets of orthodox Christianity is the belief that humans are incapable of being totally committed to the service of God, of worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth, or even of having faith at all prior to their regeneration and new life in Christ. To suggest that it is necessary (and therefore possible) for us to make a total submission of our will to the will of God before we invite Christ to enter our life and take over is to put the cart before the horse, for the very reason we need Christ to "take over" our lives is the fact that we are incapable of obedience (willing submission) on our own. If we could do it before receiving divine assistance, we could do it apart from divine assistance, which renders Christ unnecessary, which no orthodox Christian would ever affirm. In fact, we cannot even be willing to submit (which, to be sure, is different from willing submission) prior to the reception of grace. To think otherwise is to fall into the heretical trap of Pelagianism, which has been condemned among orthodox Christians since the 4th century.

And so, Augustine argues that if, as the Bible says, God creates in the believer a new heart to replace their heart of stone, then we cannot assume "without absurdity" that "there previously existed in any man the merit of a good will, to entitle him to the removal of his stony heart, when all the while this very heart of stone signifies nothing else than a will of the hardest kind and such as is absolutely inflexible against God. For where a good will precedes, there is, of course, no longer a heart of stone."

...which is why Anselm prays "Teach me to seek you, and reveal yourself to me, when I seek you, for I cannot seek you, except you teach me, nor find you, except you reveal yourself."

...and Aquinas reasons "a man cannot turn to God except through God turning him to himself."

...and Luther writes a whole treatise on "The Bondage of the Will"

And, to be sure, they all consider themselves to be drawing logical conclusions from what they read in the Bible, quoting passages like:
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44)
"You did not choose me, I chose you" (John 15:16)
"Without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)
"Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned." (Lamentations 5:8)
"By grace you have been saved, through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)


So, in sum, orthodox Christians have, for at least 1500 years or so, agreed that there is nothing humans can do on their own to prepare themselves (i.e. be worthy of) the reception of grace(i.e. to have a new life in Christ in which he "takes over") -which is precisely why Christians have no reason to boast. To say we must do something first, whether it be "to believe" or "have faith" or "be willing to obey," before we can receive grace (a life in Christ) is to treat grace as a reward, which no orthodox Christian would maintain. I'm sorry to say, what you have asked of us is not only impossible, it appears to be unchristian (which, to be fair, I'm sure was not your intention).

I applaud your desire to share your faith. I encourage you to learn more about it.


>> ^shinyblurry:

The reason I said that is because God requires a total commitment. God is looking for people who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth. So, if you're half-hearted about it that isn't going to get you anywhere. God will provide the evidence that He is there, but you have to be willing to give your life to God first.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
>> ^dr_izzybizzy:
So...doing X will lead to paradise, not doing X will lead to endless misery?
For curiosity's sake, why shouldn't I ask Jesus to take control of my life if I'm not ready (i.e. what would be the negative consequence of doing so)?
>> ^shinyblurry:
There is only one way to eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ. If you want to know Him, find a quiet place and pray that He enter your life, and let Him take it over. Don't make the request unless you are willing to turn yourself, and your life completely over to God. God bless.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
>> ^vaire2ube:
imagine the double rainbow!!
he says we should accept our mortality, but stopping aging and melding minds with technology to live forever is kinda my hope. I enjoy watching this all unfold and id like to continue to.

Martin Luther King managed to create protests and a movement that DIDN'T get in people's faces or disrupting the business of innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with what you're protesting. He did it with a positive, uplifting, inspirational message that people of good sense could not help but agree with. These yahoos are doing the exact opposite. They couldn't be driving people AWAY from their cause any better if they were trying.

Does it really matter who said it? Hitler could have said it, and it would still be a good idea. The content makes sense, the sender is not important.
>> ^Sagemind:

Thanks direpickle,
This quote was passed to me - it didn't even occur to me to fact check its authenticity.
I did find it strange MLKJr. had a quote for everything though - I guess he doesn't always, after -all.
>> ^direpickle:
>> ^Sagemind:
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Also, just for everyone's future reference, we can attribute the wrong part of that quote to the right person now.
"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy." -- Jessica Dovey
Another real quote:
"Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. … If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures." -- The 14th Dalai Lama
Also, even when you get your quotations correct, they are bad logic.

So you are saying Hitler contradicts himself constantly in his own book (if that's where your quotes came from, since most of them only site page numbers and not the source) much like the Bible? Sorry not buying it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:
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)

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)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
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)
Hitler on propaganda:
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)


>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings 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. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
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 in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:

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)


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)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

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)

Hitler on propaganda:

"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)





>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings 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. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
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 in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.