Quote: Nazi's were Christian - blessed by the pope and protestant leaders - and were much closer to taking over the world than al-queda will ever be...
I understand you deny this - fine - go ahead...- Truthmonger
Amazing statement. I'm still breathlessly trying to get my head around why TM would ever try to slip this little nugget into the open thread to begin with (???). I can just hear Dietrich Bonhoeffer doing barrel-rolls in his grave.
Since I'm (intellectually but cautiously) open to the possibility of this assertion as long as the proof is cited, I'm not going to put this topic in The Woodshed. So here's some questions to start it all off.
1. Was the Jesus of the Nazi-endorsed Positive Christianity the same Jesus of the Bible?
2. Was the Galilee of Jesus' incarnate lifetime racially distinct from the rest of Judea?
3. What was Positive Christianity's take on Romans 1:16?
4. What fellowship hath Christianity with Ariosophy? Or the Thule society? Or Himmler and Rudolf Hess?
-PJ















Comments Policy
Schachleitner
January 16, 2008 - 20:00 ET by tracheostomyUgh, 'scuze me. I sneezed. >;)
TM sent me a link as proof that Nazis were Christians: http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
Some thoughts:
- I see no connection between Eckart's second-hand quotation and the scripture cited. Just because you image yourself to be Jesus doesn't make you a Christian. To the contrary. Why would Hitler be taking it upon himself to "cleanse a temple" that is no longer there, on an already dispersed minority, post-resurrection? This is not an example of one who is obedient to the great commission.
- What exactly was Cesare Orsenigo's theology? I would ask the same of Muller and Schachleitner. Were the Catholics and Positive Christian movement formally in doctrinal agreement with one another (with written proof), or could this be seen as more of a political endorsement? Pictures like this only opens the door to more questions, rather than closes it.
- Visiting a war memorial means an official endorsement of traditional NT Christianity? Is it possible that some see symbols as tools for their own sake without any further meaning? Holding up a cross therefore makes me a Christian?
- This gallery appears to be appealing to a "guilt by association" tactic. After looking, I'm sure I can safely predict that none of my core doctrines agree with any of these men pictured. Does that therefore mean that I am not a Christian?
- Could any of these pictures have been taken in the name of propaganda?
- Oh, Hitler was photographed praying. Well, that settles it then. Geez TM, you're actually swallowing this?
- I highly doubt that Klara Hitler was Augustininan in her soteriology. But I can't prove this. And is this a case for "salvation by relation?" Looks that way to me.
- "Only Christians perform Christian weddings, and the Nazis were no exception." Well, I guess this includes my Agnostic best friend and his Mormon wife, who were married by a Protestant minister at a Masonic temple. Or does it? That assertion next to the pic makes anyone who has a wedding with Christian trappings and/or minister a Christian?
- Now celebrating Christmas makes you a Christian? Dang! I wanna join TM's church. Getting into heaven is much easier there!
- Wonder what the sermons were about. Wonder if Romans 1:16 was ever-ever uttered during that time?
- I was about to abandon this site in disgust when I came across this little gem,
No, it means that he was playing politics with the church in order to keep the masses in line. His motives betray his true loyalties, and that clearly wasn't the Christ of the Bible.
Here's another. . .
That's called "cart before the horse." As I asked above, how is withholding the gospel from the Jew reconciling the Christian doctrine with anything? How do you reconcile these three "isms" without perverting Christianity? Just because they stand in a church?
- Does this mean Bonhoeffer wasn't a Christian? Why would his theological disputes matter anyway? They're all Christians and Bonhoeffer should have just learned to get along, right?
- Re: The Deutsche_Christen movement. They deny "neither Jew nor Greek" at the outset, they make a separation between themselves and Messianic Jews (defeating TM's statment altogether), and furthermore appear to be the doctrinal supporters of Positive Christianity. See above.
Conclusion: This isn't the voice of the Chief Shepherd and I'm with Bonhoeffer. Christ's quibble wasn't with a race, but the Pharisaic sect of leadership and their interpretation and application of scripture. Could a Jew convert to Positive (Deutsche Christen) Christianity? Doubtful, seeing as how race played such a pivotal role.
Conclusion: This isn't the faith of the first council of Jerusalem. St. Paul, or Acts chapter 10.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
The thing you have to
January 16, 2008 - 21:03 ET by Free StinkerThe thing you have to realize is, TrollMonger kind of snapped and started acting b@t$#!t in$@ne sometime last year.
But it is good if someone challenges him every now and then. I keep hoping he will snap out of it.
This will be fun to watch:)
January 17, 2008 - 13:13 ET by TruthMongerand unlike trach it won't take me 1000 words to make my assertions - so have at it, people - deniers deny it if you can:
al-queda are not true Muslims - the vast majority of Islam is a Religion of Peace, worshipping the God of Abraham
the Nazi's were not true Christians - the vast majority of Christianity is a Religion of Peace, worshipping the God of Abraham
If anyone can convince the posters on this thread otherwise it's a steak dinner on me anywhere in the USA:)...
:handoverface: "Sigh". .
January 17, 2008 - 15:02 ET by tracheostomy:handoverface:
"Sigh". . .you do realize that between Islam and Judaism there are completely differing Abrahamic accounts, right TM?
But that doesn't matter, it's all the same God, right?
Is it possible that a person or group can mischaracterize God to suit their own purpose? The Bible covers that too you know. . .
You're also elevating your broad generalizations over four major religions with absolutely nothing to back it up. Do you understand?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
No he doesn't. He's been
January 17, 2008 - 15:55 ET by dvdaughtryNo he doesn't. He's been told repeatedly and comes back with "they worship the God of Abraham :)"
Your effort is valiant, but sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
So TM's running on nothing
January 17, 2008 - 16:07 ET by tracheostomySo TM's running on nothing but a "just so" fallacy?
Well, that settles that. This was easier than I thought. =)
And TM's got a Ruth's Chris gift certificate to make out, so I won't take any more of his time.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
this is what we call a punt
January 17, 2008 - 16:32 ET by TruthMongerthis is what we call a punt in football:)
3 and out, better luck next time
I'll hang around a bit longer - give you a month or so at least...
It's not punt football,
January 17, 2008 - 16:59 ET by dvdaughtryIt's not punt football, it's a waste of breath with you.
You fail to recoginze the core difference of Christianity and every other faith as the acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
This discussion with you is pointless.
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
don't worry about me - all
January 17, 2008 - 17:01 ET by TruthMongerdon't worry about me - all you have to do is impress the others on the board - and they can decide:)
That's an open-ended
January 17, 2008 - 19:38 ET by tracheostomyThat's an open-ended statement. How many posters would this require? So far I have at least 3.
Or else you're making dishonest deals at the outset.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
many of our beloved NBers
January 17, 2008 - 19:44 ET by TruthMongermany of our beloved NBers are not here on a daily basis - is your fridge empty? or can you wait a few days...
Quite frankly, no I
January 17, 2008 - 20:14 ET by tracheostomyQuite frankly, no I can't. I wanna take my wife out this Friday night, and I'm such a cheap date. =)
If anyone can convince the posters on this thread otherwise it's a steak dinner on me anywhere in the USA:)...
I did it and you know it. I even convinced you were it not for pure pride.
Reason #3.
Nazi's did not have a formal doctrinal statement defining Christianity, but Sharia law is the doctrinal statement of Al Qaeda based on the Koran.
Therefore, one asserts itself as purely Muslim, where the other was never given a chance to assert itself as purely Christian.
My choice of restaurant, yes they have gift cards available. Don't be a sore loser.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
dude - surely you can wait
January 17, 2008 - 20:41 ET by TruthMongerdude - surely you can wait a few days:)...
if you are the most correct now then you will be the most correct in a few days, right?
btw you have to convince the others - not me...
if you insist that Nazi's weren't true Christian but terrorists are indeed true Muslims then you will essentially have to demonstrate that the vast majority of Muslims in the world promote terrorism - in order to be fair to me anyway - if even 50% of Muslims don't condone or practice terrorism you can't really say it's truly Islamic can you...?
Otherwise the Nazi minority can validly claim their Christianity - just like you allow the terrorist minority to claim they're Islamic...
I say we deny them just like the Nazi's and marginalize them either further - instead of legitimizing them - and then we ally with the vast majority of Muslims - instead of alienating them...
I WANT MY POUND OF
January 17, 2008 - 21:01 ET by tracheostomyI WANT MY POUND OF FLESH!
Or in this case, my 8oz. tenderloin. =)
I have deconstructed your logical model with more than a few inconsistencies:
al-queda are not true Muslims
1. But they claim they are. Both groups must make the claim for the model to work. Conversely if both did not make such a claim, it also fails.
- the vast majority of Islam is a Religion of Peace, worshipping the God of Abraham
2. But there are differing accounts of this. The God of Muhammed's Abraham is not the same God as the Abraham of Judaism.
the Nazi's were not true Christians
3. The Nazi's had no established faith or doctrinal statement, unlike Sharia law.
- the vast majority of Christianity is a Religion of Peace,
4. Doctrinally true, but open to historical debate. This is the blurring of concept vs. application, or faith vs. works.
worshipping the God of Abraham
5. Misleading and forced at best. Christianity worships Abraham's Messiah as God, who is the focus of Christianity.
See my other statements on this. Concede the debate and give it up, TM.
-PJ
Support a policy of fair play in debate. Tell TruthMonger he owes me a steak!
inconsistencies? again I'm
January 17, 2008 - 22:00 ET by TruthMongerinconsistencies? again I'm afraid it's going to take more than "just because you say so" man:)
and again you have to convince the board, not me
you provide some fine detail on differences but my notion is about the general "class" of the claim - not the significant differences of the two class instances...
In other words a burkalounger and a folding chair are different - but still both chairs...
likewize Nazi's and AQ are different - but still both baldface lying bastards who've perverted their respective religions - thus leaving the pure faiths and relinquishing their true believer status - this is my opinion of course - and the survivors end up writing history - if I survive this is what I will write about both dispicable groups - I will gladly lump them together as two fine examples of the same kind of human scum...
I've said Nazi's aren't Christian, I reject that claim - how is that inconsistent?
By the same token I've said terrorists aren't Muslim, I reject that claim - how is that inconsistent?
Seems completely consistent to me - it's the same logic in both cases - that is if you can drop the pro-Christian/anti-Muslim prejudice...
Look at the majority of practitioners in both cases...
There were many more Nazi's than AQ members by their respective religous group percentage - so by the numbers if the tiny minority of AQ does represent Islam then the Nazi's - as well as their KKK bretheren - can legitly claim Christian status...
All of these groups do make these claims. By far most Nazi's claimed to be Christian - you have even admitted this in your own posts - they CLAIMED to be Christian - I reject these claims from both the Nazi's and the terrorists...
You accept the terrorists claim, and thereby help legitimize their claims - all of them, and consequently defame, insult, and alienate millions of potential Muslim allies in the WOT - most who reject AQ and terrorism...
And for what? I can't imagine what you gain...
TM: and again you have to
January 17, 2008 - 22:22 ET by tracheostomyTM: and again you have to convince the board, not me
You still haven't established an acceptable number of members, other than somewhat of a vague "many of our beloved NBers."
Now you're being nothing more than a "USDA Prime Tease". . .
TM: I've said Nazi's aren't Christian, I reject that claim - how is that inconsistent?
The statement is an empty assertion. I could put just about any political group in place of Nazis.
Elephants are not Christian.
Terrorists are not Muslim.
Therefore its a fake logical model. Is this supposed to be a syllogism? What do you call this anyway? This must fall under a logical model in order to be valid. So what's it supposed to be?
TM: By the same token I've said terrorists aren't Muslim, I reject that claim - how is that inconsistent?
Because (a.) it's tenatively founded on the faulty Nazi premise, and (b.) you are rejecting that the terrorists claim that they are Muslim in order for this to work.
Do you read Arabic? Can you point to an apologetics site or a debate on this between to Islamic scholars? Where do you get your proof?
Futhermore, arguing a sect into the wider umbrella of Islam itself is a valid enough stance if no "true Islam" has been defined to begin with.
TM: Seems completely consistent to me - it's the same logic in both cases - that is if you can drop the pro-Christian/anti-Muslim prejudice...
What pro-Christian/anti-Muslim prejudice?
TM: There were many more Nazi's than AQ members by their respective religous group percentage
What? Got a link? Are you ruling out the Weirmacht?
TM: - so by the numbers if the tiny minority of AQ does represent Islam then the Nazi's - as well as their KKK bretheren - can legitly claim Christian status...
You just shoehorned the KKK in there! You don't have to be a majority to represent the tenets of a faith. Furthermore, you're making a forced association between a political/racial ideal and a purely religious one. Your model is pure non-sequitur. Where do you get the authority to draw a line connecting the mostly political (with religion in the back-seat) and a holy war for the purpose of theocracy (religion in the front seat)?
TM: All of these groups do make these claims. By far most Nazi's claimed to be Christian - you have even admitted this in your own posts - they CLAIMED to be Christian -
QUOTE ME! I didn't say that. I'm supporting Master's posts, which also state otherwise.
TM: You accept the terrorists claim, and thereby help legitimize their claims - all of them, and consequently defame, insult, and alienate millions of potential Muslim allies in the WOT - most who reject AQ and terrorism...
No. I am not saying:
Muslims ---> all terrorists.
I am saying:
Al-Qaeda ---> claims to be Muslim and are using force to make you take their claim seriously.
The lynchpin of your model is the word "true". It must apply in both cases. You're waffling on it, therefore it doesn't apply.
TM: And for what? I can't imagine what you gain...
A FREE STEAK AT ELLA'S SUPPERCLUB!!! WOO-HOO!!!
-PJ
Support a policy of fair play in debate. Tell TruthMonger he owes me a steak!
Man don't worry about the
January 17, 2008 - 23:49 ET by TruthMongerMan don't worry about the damn steak - I'll get you one EVEN IF YOU LOSE ALREADY...
Just stop declaring yourself the winner - it's up to a vote - a few days will do - chill bud...
Trach
January 17, 2008 - 23:57 ET by dvdaughtryGive me your paypal address and I will send you money for your favorite cocktail while the chef preps your slab of beef!
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
What kind of vote? You're
January 18, 2008 - 00:23 ET by tracheostomyWhat kind of vote? You're sooo faking this whole thing TM. . .
-PJ
Support a policy of fair play in debate. Tell TruthMonger he owes me a steak!
like totally:)? you can
January 18, 2008 - 13:27 ET by TruthMongerlike totally:)? you can determine the vote parameters and numbers - it's your thread
LLETS get ready to RUMMMBLLE!!!
January 18, 2008 - 16:28 ET by tracheostomyWhy thank you kind sir. This is a parameter that I was previously unaware of.
How about. . .
("boom"-fireworks)
"TM vs. PJ": Whoever gets the majority vote of any 25 members after Saturday 11:59 p.m. will officially WIN the debate. You need more than 50% in favor to win.
Anything less forfeits the contender and automatically drops out of the running, which means we could both lose if NB fails to step up and show some spine on this.
Sound fair? I set up the rules, but I need someone else to set up the poll. How's that look TM?
-PJ
Support a policy of fair play in debate. Tell TruthMonger he owes me a steak!
TM will stay neutral to
January 22, 2008 - 16:23 ET by TruthMongerTM will stay neutral to minimize bias:)
again you determine the voting - needing no approval from me...
TM, the deadline passed and
January 22, 2008 - 16:35 ET by tracheostomyTM, the deadline passed and I was unable to get an actual poll up, much less a majority vote.
So you win by default -the debate is over.
This thread is now about who makes the worst meatloaf (see bottom).
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
TM said (in bold)
January 18, 2008 - 00:28 ET by botgthe vast majority of Christianity is a Religion of Peace, worshipping the God of Abraham
Munger: Jesus is the God of Abraham? Have you told the Jews?
the vast majority of Islam is a Religion of Peace, worshipping the God of Abraham
Munger: Jesus is the God of Islam? Have you told the Muslims?
GoHunter08
Please don't aggravate
January 18, 2008 - 03:28 ET by mastersofdeceitthe patient.
Partnering with Islam, back in the day.
hee hee(ok no mas no mas. Truce! that horse is dead.)
Christianity 101...
January 18, 2008 - 13:30 ET by TruthMonger5 points - who is the Father of Jesus? Include scripture quotes to support your answer:)...
Where has all authority in
January 18, 2008 - 16:00 ET by tracheostomyWhere has all authority in heaven and earth been granted by the Father?
That's part of my argument and it stands on that merit. Stay in your corner. The bell has't rung yet. =)
-PJ
Support a policy of fair play in debate. Tell TruthMonger he owes me a steak!
..and who has it been
January 23, 2008 - 15:28 ET by TruthMonger..and who has it been granted from... Didn't expect you guys to try and put Jesus above His Father - this is a bonus chuckle to say the least:)
As Benny Hill would say:
January 23, 2008 - 22:41 ET by botgAs Benny Hill would say: "Deezz i coudda hadda human bein for da same price"
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Nazis/Christians
January 17, 2008 - 04:24 ET by mastersofdeceitHa trach I was actually going to start a forum post about this a few weeks ago. Because two of TMs statements that always bugged me was his "nazi christians" and "kkk christians". But after everyone got done laughing at his "partner with islam" ideas, it looked liked most (ahem) everyone had let it rest.
Now since you've put the post up I'll share some of the "research" I've been doing.
First let's get the "kkk are christians" out of the way. The klan burns or burned crosses because they are vehemently anti-catholic. It's neither a race thing or pro-christian statement. If anything they were pro-protestant jihadists. Why do you think there is a "whites" column in lynching statistics by year? If you were a white, catholic republican dating a black woman, whooo look out.
Now as far as the matter at hand, my hard, exhaustive "research" has consisted of one book only. My hard back 1st ed. printing of Goebbels diaries. Looks just like this one except my book spine is split. What could possibly be a better source(crackball websites aside) on getting a look at how the reich viewed and thought of Christianity and organized religion? Did you know there actually was a "church solution"? Some quotes will include footnotes by the editor, translator Lochner who knew Goebbels.
1/29/42
"Rosenberg's office has worked out an agrarian reform for the occupied areas which envisages the gradual elimination of the kolchose [collective community farm] and the return of land to private ownership."
[ Alfred Rosenberg, Nazi party Reichsleiter for ideological indoctrination and editor of the official Party organ, the Voelkischer Beobachter (Racist Observer), was one of HItler's earliest followers ...He was one of the bitterest opponents of Christianity and worked for its complete abolition in Germany..]
2/1/42
"It would be far more fitting for Spain to remain faithful to the Axis, for no special laurels are to be had from the Catholic Church. Franco, as we know, is a bigoted churchgoer."
2/5/42
"Some difficulties arise for us from the fact that the churches, especially the Catholic Church, are trying to use our seizure of church bells for war purposes as an excuse for unrestrained propaganda against National Socialism."
2/19/42
"The Catholic Church continues to act in a dastardly way. A number of pastoral letters have been laid before me which are so unrealistic and treacherous that nothing need be added. ..Let the "skypilots" [Pfaffen] have their say; we'll present our bill to them after the war."
2/21/42
"Bishop Presing of Berlin continues to criticize the German war leaders. I had at first intended to order him to come to see me personally and then to tell him off, but I got away from that idea because I am convinced this would lead to nothing...It is best not to touch on this theme at all but rather to postpone it to the end of the war."
3/21/42
"On the one hand it can't be denied that certain measures of the Party, especially the decree about crucifixes, have made it altogether too easy to the bishops to rant against the state. Goering, too, is very much put out about it. His whole attitude toward the Christian denominations is quite open and aboveboard. He sees through them, and has no intention whatever of taking them under his protection. On the other hand he agrees with me completely that it won't do to get started now, in wartime, on so difficult and far-reaching a problem."
[The Nazis insisted upon the removal of crucifixes from schools and hospitals.]
12/11/42
"The Fascist periodical, Gerarchia, which is edited by Mussolini himself, discussed at length the question of religion in Europe after the war. Christianity is pointedly placed in the foreground. Obviously the Duce feels that he must somewhat neutralize the work of the Church...But that is all the more reason for us not to say anything about these utterances of his."
[The Nazis were determined to eliminate Christianity from Germany after the war. Alfred Rosenberg had already prepared a decree for Hitler's signature by which even the lowest-paid menial worker on the public pay roll was to lose his job if he continued church membership.]
12/17/42
"The Fascist Revolution, a periodical belonging to a nephew of the Duce, has published an article opposing our National Socialist conception of religion. This article deals with the same theme that was discussed recently in Gerarchia, its tenor being that Europe is a Christian continent and that the Christian leadership of the continent must continue. ...we are not in a position at the moment to publish all our arguments. We shall have to wait for a more favorable opportunity. Most likely we can tackle the church question bluntly only after the war."
"The Christmas program for radio and the press has been submitted for my okay. We are limiting ourselves to only a few broadcasts and editorials dealing exclusively with Christmas. It won't do for the people in these difficult times to fall too much for the sentimental magic of these festival days."
5/8/43
"Opposition by the churches, which is giving us such an awful lot of trouble, no longer exists under Bolshevism. If there is talk today of a Metropolitan of Moscow, that is naturally just a Jewish swindle."
7/28/43
"Himmler told me something about a question that is rather secondary; namely, that of the International Bible Students. These Bible Students are a queer mixture of contemporaries living outside our time. Their refusal to bear arms is usually not because of cowardice, but a matter of principle. That's why Himmler rightly takes this view: Objectors to military service who are beyond draft age should be put behind bars so that they cannot proselytize; objectors to military service, however, who are of draft age, should be condemned to death for cowardice and desertion. Some of them accept the death penalty with absolute stoicism. The older Bible Students are giving an excellent account of themselves in concentration camps and are exceptionally able and dependable workers; they give us the least trouble of anybody there."
[The International Bible Students were a small sect claiming to be serious searchers into the verities of Holy Script. The conception of the "conscientious objector" was unknown to the Nazis]
I still have some pages I haven't looked through, if I find anything else, as if anyone needed it, I'll post it back here.
On a side note about a year ago, I ended up at the nazi.org forums.(No I wasn't searching it out, but I fear no link) Someone had put up a post trying to link the nazis to christianity. There were cries of "is this a troll". They completely shredded the idea (better than I've done here actually) it's absolutely laughable even to modern nazis that they had anything to do with christianity or were christians. Can we put this to bed now?
Boom. TruthMonger owes
January 17, 2008 - 15:10 ET by tracheostomyBoom. TruthMonger owes you a steak.
Cough up TM. This is some of the best content I've seen yet.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
the board decides:)
January 17, 2008 - 17:02 ET by TruthMongerthe board decides:)
Thread Cloggers Syndrome akaTM
January 18, 2008 - 03:18 ET by mastersofdeceitIf you could just show the board how the "nazis were christian" that would be great. If you could answer without a first response invoking islam,al-qaeda,muslims,terrorists,moderates that would also have been great. Let's not beat that horse again please. Look at the title of this post, it has two words in it, that's what were discussing. Just give some evidence that the nazis thought they were acting as justified by christianity or acting in the name of. That's all I'm asking. Do you have any links to speeches or writings? Which would be public propaganda anyway.I would like to read them. Heck I just might buy you a steak dinner just for posting any credible links.
Goebbels in his diary says "thank God" or refers to someone acting "like a devil" several times. Maybe the nazis did believe in some higher power & evil, more deists who knows, but it doesn't just make them "christians".
But I consider myself an amatuer actually on nazi germany, yet in everything I've read I have never came away with a pro christian or pro church view by the nazis. So if you could share that would be great.
4/5/42
"I proposed to the Fuehrer that he forbid visits of German soldiers to the Pope. This series of visits has really become a public danger. The Pope, of course, embraces every opportunity to receive German soldiers in order to impress them with the whole pomp of the Vatican's ceremony. Besides, the present Pope is clever enough to use these things for obvious propaganda....That's why this evil must be stopped."
12/13/42
It is, for example, very disagreeable for the Party that the local group leader must inform the bereaved of the hero's death of a son, brother, or husband. Formerly the Church did this. Now the Party has been charged with it, with the result that in little villages people are scared to death whenever the local group leader comes to their home....But certain sections in the Party in their shortsightedness and in their blind hatred of the Church insisted upon driving out the devil (church) with Beelzebub. The results now are anything but pleasant."
i don't have to show that
January 18, 2008 - 13:31 ET by TruthMongeri don't have to show that the Nazi's were Christian - I don't think they were Christian - did you read my first post above:)?
i don't have to show that the Nazi's were Christian
January 24, 2008 - 05:00 ET by mastersofdeceitWhy not? You said it. Your first post? Where you, for some strange reason brought up al qaeda and islam again? In a thread titled "nazis=christians? That post?
Nazi's were Christian - blessed by the pope and protestant leaders -Truthmonger
Wow something the catholics and protestants could agree on!
How about the nazis were muslim because they had met with the grand mufti ? See how silly this all is now?
Nazi and Terroists......
January 24, 2008 - 23:23 ET by Timothy HActually, there seems to be a point here that is being missed. Both of you seem to be both right and wrong.
The Nazi's were not Christians, at least not truthfully. But Hitler and his party DID believe that they were doing God's work. Read Mein Kumpf. Hitler called himself Christian. The Crusades were also fought under the banner of Christianity. Many horrible things have been done under the "God told me to do it" flag, and the bible was twisted into a hate filled order for them.
Likewise, terrorists are not Muslims. They claim to be, and the Koran has been twisted and mistranslated into a hate filled call to arms by said maniacs. But that does not make them the same peaceful, honorable and loyal muslims like those I know, having been a christian growing up in one of the countries largest muslim community, Dearborn, MI. Nor do they represent the many Bosnian muslims that I currently work with here in South Bend, IN.
The problem here seems to be a misunderstanding of what REAL muslims actually believe. Try asking one. Many live here in America. The truth is, that without the fear of being attacked for lacking a radicalist leaning, Most muslims are honest and peaceful people.
The fact is that Radical Muslim Gov'ts are being confused with the muslim people.
Ask yourself this. During the time of the crusades, it was the Christians on the offensive, lead by the Kings and the religious leaders. Were the individual Europeans less Christian? Were the Crusades following the teachings of Christ? The leadership of Europe and the Church both failed to be Christian, and were every bit as radical as the current Muslim religious leadership and National leadership. So were our decendants not Christians?
The point is that just because the Middle Eastern leadership and sitting Islamic religious leadership has failed in it's religious duties, that does not make the ordinary muslims less peaceful..
And, btw, let's face it, if even 25% of the religious muslims were radicalized, our great nation would no longer exist. The estimates for the world Muslim population very from about 900 million to 1.2 billion. Assuming that 10% of those were deeply commited to their religion (and I'm pulling that number out of thin air. Who actually knows what the actual percentage would be, but I felt that 10% would be a fair, if not conservative, number), those numbers would reach 90 to 120 million. Quarter that, and you would have between 22 and 30 million zealots running around with intentions of bombing and killing. What exactly could we do to stop even one million radical islamist zealots?
Imagine this. There are an estimated 5-7 million Muslims in the United States. If ever 1 percent of the low end estimate of 5 million were radical, that would be 50,000 radical islamists waging war here on our home soil. How exactly is the Department of Homeland Security dealing with all of that?
Just some things to think about.
- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints -
mastersofdeceit
January 18, 2008 - 01:57 ET by Carl KolchakI've seen you make some good posts, but that is the best post I've ever seen you make. Good stuff about Rosenberg. Not too many people know who he was. Also, I've read in books where members of the SS changed their name because it was a biblical name and the SS didn't recognize the Bible.
One thing to remember is that there was a big difference between the Wehrmacht and the SS. Chaplains would accompany the Wehrmacht, but the Wehrmacht weren't the hardcore Nazis like the SS, although you can find instances where the Wehrmacht commited war crimes, but not to the extent that the SS did, or that the NKVD committed against their own citizens. I would say the Red Army's atrocites once the tide turned on the Eastern Front would be worse than the Wehrmachts, but not as bad as the SS.
On a side note in regards to Nazis, does anyone know what the 'S' in NSDAP stands for?
Hey carl The Jams Back!
January 18, 2008 - 03:40 ET by mastersofdeceitHaven't seen ya in a while. I don't know off hand the NSDAP. Just responded again above to TM with some more quotes. If he comes back with anything substantial I might respond.
Did you see bruce and rick from the Jam are doing their own tour with The Stranglers singer on vocals? It's coming next friday. Heres the tour dates. I checked the English press reviews, you know they would be the most critical of this w/out Weller and would trash it, however it's been nothing but praise and supportive. I'm looking forward to it.
now you're getting it -
January 18, 2008 - 13:33 ET by TruthMongernow you're getting it - German army regulars - I've met a few here in the states - several in Minnesota here - they're Christians...
1. But they're not Nazis.
January 18, 2008 - 16:41 ET by tracheostomy1. But they're not Nazis. Not during the war and especially not after.
2. You have no idea when they converted (60 year margin-of-error).
3. You're trying to prop up both elements of your statement (Nazis = Christians) one at a time and hope we miss the other half along the way. They must both be true in order to keep your model from collapsing.
-PJ
Support a policy of fair play in debate. Tell TruthMonger he owes me a steak!
yes, now you're seeing the
January 22, 2008 - 16:31 ET by TruthMongeryes, now you're seeing the details of the challenges here...
who was "Nazi?" and when? just the Germans soldiers? or all of the foriegn legions and allies? were they "Christian?" many claimed to be...
and likewise now who is a terrorist? when? are they Muslim? many claim to be...
what are the parameters, the qualifications?
Great List mastersofdeceit !
January 27, 2008 - 20:07 ET by Free StinkerGreat List mastersofdeceit!
You have won (another) Free Stinker Comprehensive List Award
Newsbusters. Log on and find out What the heck is so yummy over here!
Easy...
January 17, 2008 - 06:57 ET by Sua Sponte 75"I'm still breathlessly trying to get my head around why TM would ever try to slip this little nugget into the open thread to begin with"
I imagine it's because he believes we're all ignorant and blind, it's a pop smoke and pull out the mirrors defense mechanism, once a good smackin' has been recieved concerning TRoP he reverts to the nazis/Christian mantra. It's in the playbook. But I'm sure he'll keep paddling that chickwire canoe for all it's worth, some people just want the attention.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
it's nice to know you can
January 18, 2008 - 13:34 ET by TruthMongerit's nice to know you can imagine - that will be helpful:)
Typical..
January 21, 2008 - 01:55 ET by Sua Sponte 75Heh...clown...
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
another fine argument
January 22, 2008 - 16:32 ET by TruthMongeranother fine argument there:)
observation
January 22, 2008 - 22:33 ET by botgobservation
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Not really...
January 23, 2008 - 10:22 ET by Sua Sponte 75much of an arguement, more of a statement of observation..
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem"
insightful observation
January 23, 2008 - 15:30 ET by TruthMongerinsightful observation then:)
Yes...
January 24, 2008 - 05:14 ET by Sua Sponte 75Big red nose and oversized shoes were a dead giveaway...and your posts....but mostly your posts...
"Don't you have somewhere else to be a clown?"
→ We're really discussing Nazis?
January 17, 2008 - 07:15 ET by Cool ArrowOK, maybe this is really a serious debate.
It should be hard to find those who would say Pius XII was the best man for the job during the war. Got no respect for him as a man.
But Christians are definitely not Nazis.
I ♣ My Seal
Christians are not
January 17, 2008 - 17:21 ET by TruthMongerChristians are not Nazi's...
you agree with me on that - remember you have to disprove me instead
It's a pisser when you have
January 17, 2008 - 08:04 ET by Jack BauerIt's a pisser when you have to react seriously to a ludicrous proposition.
It puts you on the same level, gives the idiot the semblance of being equal intellectually, and no matter what you say, it will never change the mind of the other person.
Because how can you make any impression of a character who proposes that Nazism = Christianity and nazis = christians.
Apart from fellow fascists the only country which made a pact with the Nazis were the Communists in the USSR.
The two countries which led the world war in the fight against the Nazis (the UK and the US) had huge Christian populations, and where led by governments who by all measure were also largely Christian.
All this is common knowledge, as is the pagan, non-Christian beliefs of the Nazis.
Did Christians join the Nazi party. Undoubtedly. But then, Communists infiltrated and joined the Democrat party in the 1930s onwards.
And there were probably people who were still secrety Christians who had to join the Soviet conmunist party to survive.
This only proves that people will do a lot to ensure the survival of themselves and their family.
Bauer: It's a pisser when
January 17, 2008 - 15:21 ET by tracheostomyBauer: It's a pisser when you have to react seriously to a ludicrous proposition.
It puts you on the same level, gives the idiot the semblance of being equal intellectually, and no matter what you say, it will never change the mind of the other person.
Agreed. But this is a media age where in fact we are arbitrarily placed on an equal playing field here. The "pre-internet generation" knows how to recognize content for what it is, but to those much younger--it's all pseudonymous text.
Thus, everyone's posts here are as good as the rest, the only difference being objective content. And if one person believes the "Nazi = Christians" lie here, how many others believe it out there?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
read carefully people - I
January 17, 2008 - 17:07 ET by TruthMongerread carefully people - I said the Nazi's weren't Christians, and by the same token al-queda is not Muslim:)
O_o < ??? They're two
January 17, 2008 - 17:15 ET by tracheostomyO_o < ???
They're two totally different conversations.
Were you just being facetious or trying to show some irony. . .somewhere?
Listen. I'm new to your debate and I'm getting the impression that you're not being honest about your stance here (whatever that is).
What's your point? You're not coming across at all. What does this have to do with al-qaeda?
Just be straight with me TM. You're completely losing me here. What's your stance? If you're going to educate me, you'll have to come across more honestly and more clearly.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
it's a pretty brief
January 17, 2008 - 17:24 ET by TruthMongerit's a pretty brief statement up above already - but I'll try to shorten it...
Nazi's ain't Christian
terrorists ain't Muslim
I can try and shorten that one too if you like...
So your were being
January 17, 2008 - 17:32 ET by tracheostomySo your were being intentionally misleading when you wrote. . .
Or was it your attempt at irony? You propped up a completely false agenda to promote a separate one that you actually believed in?
What the hell are you doing? You're completely eroding your own reputation with this "bait and switch" garbage!!! I spent all that time writing when I thought you were serious.
Screw you man. You just lost someone who was willing to honestly listen (emphasis on the honest part).
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
take a breath, focus...
January 17, 2008 - 17:47 ET by TruthMongerit's just part of the larger conversation, bro - summarized by me in my original post above...
you're taking me out of context - like taking the Bible out of context - like the "godhatesshrimp" gumbies...
like the Bible, take me in my full context - you usually like to dissect accurately on these matters so it should be a walk in the park for ya...
or you could probably Google back to my initiation of this whole topic a few months ago...
or just stick to my original post on your lovely thread here - I recommend the latter - but it's your call...
You can use the short one too just above for now - and I'll give you weeks on end for this topic - no big hurry...
what do you say to my shortened version just above? it's the salient point that few on this site can seem to accept right now...
it's just part of the
January 17, 2008 - 18:10 ET by tracheostomyit's just part of the larger conversation, bro - summarized by me in my original post above...
Oh no you don't. Either you believed it or you didn't. This was purposefully misleading "bro." If the truth is really on your side, why do you feel you have to resort to such weasely tactics?
you're taking me out of context - like taking the Bible out of context - like the "godhatesshrimp" gumbies...
The what??? What kind of a conceited statement is that?!? You're not even on my buddy list! What the hell, you're writing your own "gospel according to TruthMonger" now???
like the Bible, take me in my full context - you usually like to dissect accurately on these matters so it should be a walk in the park for ya...
That's your responsibility. Why didn't you at least "clue me in" at the outset? You didn't even PM me!
or you could probably Google back to my initiation of this whole topic a few months ago...
or just stick to my original post on your lovely thread here - I recommend the latter - but it's your call...
:dizzy: Avalanched. . .by contradictory statements. . .short-circuiting my brain. So you did mean what you said after all??? What?
what do you say to my shortened version just above? it's the salient point that few on this site can seem to accept right
Gah, my head hurts with your switcheroo BS.
You're statment is akin to. . .
"Nazi's are not Christian.
as to
terrorists are not Muslim."
If you're really backing this assertion (and I don't know if I can even trust that anymore), you're saying that. . .
1. Nazis and terrorists are similar.
2. Muslims and Christians are similar.
This is a 100% forced association on so many levels.
One group has cited Islam as their priority (whether valid or not), and the other cites race, nationality, political idealism, the Fuhrer, and even religious syncretism above the core doctrines of Christianity. IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH FOR YOU? NOT TOO WORDY, I HOPE?
You can argue your point all your like, but your tactics have completely eroded my trust. Now every time I read your posts, I'll be wondering, "Did he really mean that, or is he attempting some sort of ironic association?"
This is both manipulative and asinine. As stated above, you don't need to use these kinds of dirty tricks if the truth is really on your side.
And at this point, I have a hard time trusting you, no matter what you say you believe. You burned me once, I'll know better next time.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
focus focus focus - right here
January 17, 2008 - 18:21 ET by TruthMongereverything you need from me is right here on this board - you may proceed from my original post at the top - which summaries my position asserted several months ago - led to the defamation-ban discussion, etc - and now continued here - good luck - I will check in periodically this evening:
Nazi's ain't Christian
terrorists ain't Muslim
disprove this to the board and get yerself a free steak
#1. Don't patronize me. #2.
January 17, 2008 - 18:31 ET by tracheostomy#1. Don't patronize me.
#2. There is no comparison between the laundry lists of Nazis versus the demands of the members of al-qaeda.
More simply put. One was racially motivated and syncretistic, while the other is clearly not. Blammo. You lose.
Has anyone ever used those terms previously? I don't think so. I want my gift-card now!
I made it very simple and now you're deliberately ignoring it. You owe me, Mastersofdeceit, and I don't know how many others a steak. You lose. Try again. Your associations have proven themselves to suck. You're left with nothing but "just so" assertions.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Trach and TM
January 17, 2008 - 18:36 ET by JasonCThough I tend to resist the Terrorism = Islam equation, I'd have to say QED for trach...
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
thanks for playing - duly
January 17, 2008 - 18:45 ET by TruthMongerthanks for playing - duly noted:)