FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Does god have a lot in common with Hitler?





JoryRFerrell
Both "God" and Hitler placed special emphasis on the Jews as being a "special people".
Wouldn't this make God as racist as Hitler, even though he is technically showing preference for Jews?
God murdered innocent Egyptians in favor of the Jews, while Hitler murdered Jews in favor of Germans.

Also, would this make Jews, who believe themselves to be gods chosen people, racist as well?
Just a thought....
JoryRFerrell
lol....awwwww....come on...someone reply pls.... Sad Razz
Bikerman
Yahweh was certainly racist, amongst his many and grievous faults. It is what one might expect from essentially a 'war God'.
LxGoodies
@jorry a preference is not racism, it's just a preference. You call white men who love black women racist ? When a people calls itself "god chosen" that's only natural. In modern men this particular state of mind is invoked when winning Olympic games gold medals. Hurray, WE win.

Very Happy Lx
Bikerman
Quote:
Racism - views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior.

A preference might mean a slight leaning, or it may mean complete conviction and in no way can 'preference' be considered incompatible with 'ism' - in this case racism.
Thus, the coach who 'prefers' black students on his team, based on his belief that blacks are athletically superior, IS a racist, just as much as the redneck moron who thinks that 'negro' equates to a 'sub species' of white humans.

Religious believers calling themselves 'God Chosen' is actually rare. Most religions welcome converts, so talking about being 'chosen' doesn't really make much sense. Judaism is quite unusual in that it does not evangelise and therefore doesn't concentrate on making new converts. It is Matrilineal - ie if Mom is Jewish then children are Jewish. Jews actually compound faith with ethnicity in a way which is unusual, perhaps even unique - thus Jewish is often both a description of a faith system and also used as a racial classification as well (wrongly). We do not find the same with the other 2 Abrahamic faiths and other faith systems which ARE more associated with ethnicity - Sikhism, for example, being founded in the Punjab - generally spread and loose the identification with a particular ethnic grouping.
LxGoodies
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Racism - views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior.

A preference might mean a slight leaning, or it may mean complete conviction and in no way can 'preference' be considered incompatible with 'ism' - in this case racism.
Thus, the coach who 'prefers' black students on his team, based on his belief that blacks are athletically superior, IS a racist, just as much as the redneck moron who thinks that 'negro' equates to a 'sub species' of white humans.

I don't quite agree there Bikerman.. this cannot be compared to sexiual preference (my example). Someone who acknowledges black athletes to be better at 100m sprint just read the statistics, they are not racist by definition. There is a difference between objective facts and preference, by the way.. we agree that an amateur coach that discriminates white kids (because of whatever prejudice) is a racist. A professional coach however can have another agenda, justified by e.g. the urge to actually win, with more Jamaicans on the team. In that case it seems a sensible choice.. statistically that is.. he is profiting from a racist past (slavery and selective breeding in the 17th century) but that's another story.. the professional coach cannot be blamed for that past.

Quote:
Religious believers calling themselves 'God Chosen' is actually rare. Most religions welcome converts, so talking about being 'chosen' doesn't really make much sense. Judaism is quite unusual in that it does not evangelise and therefore doesn't concentrate on making new converts. It is Matrilineal - ie if Mom is Jewish then children are Jewish. Jews actually compound faith with ethnicity in a way which is unusual, perhaps even unique - thus Jewish is often both a description of a faith system and also used as a racial classification as well (wrongly). We do not find the same with the other 2 Abrahamic faiths and other faith systems which ARE more associated with ethnicity - Sikhism, for example, being founded in the Punjab - generally spread and loose the identification with a particular ethnic grouping.


Interesting point. I can add that only men can convert to judaism (after a study), not women. A converted jew cannot procreate as a jew. IMHO judaism should be distinguished from jewishness, or being a jew. I am a non-religious jew, I was born from a jewish mother and a non-jewish father, which makes me actually a half jew for secular law, or a jew for jewish law. I don't really feel a jew nowadays because of political reasons. But I can only say that, because I was not raised with judaism, that is the religion prescribing the apartheid implied in the bible. The non-ethnic side of judaism is caused by the fact that judaism is an old religion: in the centuries, people mixed and passed judaism on to mixed race and in the end 99% mono-ethnic populations in some areas. Most people don't realise that ALL modern people are mixed race. Even the people that started judaism were homo sapiens sapiens. They went to Egypt and Babylon according to the legend, jewish mothers picking up all kind of genes. If you look at the diaspora phenomenon, which is on the historical record, there has not existed a jewish race since 70AD..

Lx
Bikerman
Quote:
Someone who acknowledges black athletes to be better at 100m sprint just read the statistics, they are not racist by definition.
Au contraire. If they DID think that, and they associated it with race, then indeed they would be racist (and wrong).
Quote:
he is profiting from a racist past (slavery and selective breeding in the 17th century) but that's another story
It is also a fairy story. Slavery operated over a few generations - not long enough to produce gross phenotype differences such as that.
Nor is the assertion that 'black athletes' are superior particularly useful. Yes, there ARE some genetic differences in some people with ancestry in particular areas of West Africa, which mean they will, on average, have more 'fast-twitch' muscle fibre than a typical person from elsewhere. It isn't related to skin colour - it just happens that the regions concerned have predominantly black populations. So while sprinting records clearly show a predominance of Afro-Caribbean runners, to then generalise this to a racial trait is simply wrong.

This notion that the coach cannot be 'blamed for the past' is irrelevant to the charge of racism. Racism is a view, or set of views, which are wrong, and which assume physiological differences which are racially based. One does not have to be a thug or physical participant in brutality or suppression to qualify. Racism is fundamentally just a wrong-headed outlook which is massively overgeneralised and which ties-in to an overall worldview which requires, or encourages, the tendency to divide people into us and them groupings in a simplistic manner which allows the generation or maintenance of superiority on the part of the racist.

It is wrong headed on several levels.
a) Race is an almost meaningless 'classification'. What 'race' am I and what characteristics define it? When questioned in this way, the notion of race begins to look decidedly dodgy and ephemeral.
b) In any case the notion that differences are tied to 'race' is just plain wrong in most cases I can think of - even if I was prepared to be extremely generous and extremely sloppy in allowing definitions of 'race' from proponents.
c) Even when differences can be seen, in general terms, between one racial group and others, the members of a particular 'race' will vary in the trait/characteristic in question very considerably./ In fact there will usually be differences within the 'race' which are as large, or even larger, than the imagined difference between an averaged measure of the group as a whole and that of other racial groups. In short, the worst sprinters from West Africa will probably be every bit as bad as the worst from other groups, and the range from bad to good will probably be very close to the ranges in other populations.

Although a particular population might, through interbreeding, share a certain genetic trait, the trait will almost certainly be heritable by other groups/populations. The affected population have the trait because of who their parents had sex with and married, not because of a wider genetic relatedness, and almost always this will have little or no dependence on other genetic differences which are commonly used as the main 'racial' identifiers or indicators - skin colour, facial feature traits etc etc.
The issue of 'race' is almost irrelevant, and it is only the fact that, historically, humans have lived in localised and relatively non-mobile groups, that makes it seem that the trait is dependant upon, or a reflection of a wider 'raciality'.

In other words, West Africans will tend to be better sprinters than others because of one or more generic differences which govern the production of muscle-fibres, particularly the proportion of slow/fast fibres produced. The fact that they are black, have particular facial features associated with West Africa etc etc - this is a distraction, nothing more.
spinout
For Hitler the choice must have been simple - to control the people he need to take out the ones having/controlling the funds. Also, in poor times the ones having all the funds are the bad guys! So basic strategy was to liberate the money and create the war machinery to take more control... But if Hitler had won the war and taken over the planet - well that would be the end of dominace anyway! He had then nothing to proove!


For "Gods" view I am not sure, it could have been either way...
jajarvin
Hitler's public relationship to religion has been characterised as one of opportunistic pragmatism:

Religious views of Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 wrote:

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.
Today, 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 myself 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
spinout
Surely they have a lot in common - well that christian god must be a communist so that will be the most hard part to match.
Indi
I always find these silly arguments about whether Hitler was or wasn't a Christian to be completely disingenuous. Whether Hitler was a Christian or not, the fact remains that Nazi Germany was like 95% Christian... and it wasn't Hitler torching Jewish businesses or herding Jews into ghettos or gassing them in concentration camps, it was average Germans. 95% of whom were Christian.

So even if it's true that Hitler wasn't Christian (which is a huge stretch), the bottom line is that Christianity is still at least 95% responsible for the Holocaust. Not only because ~95% of the people actually doing it were Christian, but also because the very ideas that started it are Christian ideas (like the idea of Jews being "Christ killers" and so on). And that's even without pointing out that two of Hitler's biggest inspirations for rounding up the Jews in ghettos were Martin Luther and Popes Innocent and Paul.
deanhills
Indi wrote:
Christian (which is a huge stretch), the bottom line is that Christianity is still at least 95% responsible for the Holocaust.
For me it was "humanity" (not religion) that was responsible for all of those atrocities. As little as you could blame all of it on Hitler, how is it possible to blame it on a religion or creed? There were a majority of citizens who had gone on the rampage, completely out of control, as they had done on many occasions during the course of history. People seem to like to make war on one another so they can control others into submission. For me most of it is an eternal power struggle with plenty of ego thrown in the works. Hitler was an egomaniac per excellence. And he seemed to have gathered similar types around him. Not dissimilar to his contemporary, Stalin, of Russia. With Stalin it also had nothing to do with Christianity. With him it was yet another case of pure unadulterated struggle for power and killing millions in order to stay in power.
Indi
deanhills wrote:
For me it was "humanity" (not religion) that was responsible for all of those atrocities.

The simple proof that it's not merely "humanity" that caused the Holocaust - or antisemitism in general - is that it's not happening everywhere. In fact, the only places Jewish people are really singled out for persecution are places that are dominated by one of the two big non-Jewish Abrahamic religions: Christianity and Islam. You won't find antisemitism in places dominated by, say, Hinduism or Buddhism (with one caveat i'll mention in a moment).

And this shouldn't be surprising. Hatred of Jewish people doesn't come out of nowhere - it's not just a "human" trait - it specifically comes from Christian theology. And it comes right from the inception of Christianity. The Gospels specifically pin the blame for Jesus's supposed death on Jewish people... even though that makes no bleeding sense whatsoever when you stop and think about it for a minute... and generally portrayed Jewish people and customs negatively. Islam inherited that (though they did initially try to sidestep Christianity and welcome Jewish people - once Jewish people said "thanks, but no thanks" that was the end of all the niceness). That's where all antisemitism comes from. It didn't just come out of nowhere. It was specifically and consciously manufactured by early Christian writers.

Now I mentioned above that you won't find persecution of Jewish people in places not dominated by Christianity or Islam... but that's technically not true. You can find persecution of Jewish people in places like India and Japan. However... it didn't exist until Christianity/Islam imported it (usually Christianity). I'm not making that up. Japanese people, for example, had nothing against Jewish people... until Christian missionaries imported antisemitism (among other crap, like homophobia). Same with places like India, where you can actually date the start of antisemitism to the beginning of Christian influence... look up the Goa Inquisition for proof.

So no, the Holocaust was not a product of "humanity". It was clearly, and explicitly, a product of Christianity.

deanhills wrote:
There were a majority of citizens who had gone on the rampage, completely out of control, as they had done on many occasions during the course of history. People seem to like to make war on one another so they can control others into submission. For me most of it is an eternal power struggle with plenty of ego thrown in the works. Hitler was an egomaniac per excellence. And he seemed to have gathered similar types around him. Not dissimilar to his contemporary, Stalin, of Russia.

There are very, very, very few cases in history that are even remotely similar to what happened in Nazi Germany. You can find small outbreaks of racially or religious motivated violence here and there, and even the odd spontaneous genocide carried out haphazardly in times of extreme anarchy, and of course the attempted annihilation of an enemy when invading their territory... but you can count on one hand the number of times in history when an entire nation organized a massive, planned genocide against a subset of their own population, out in the open, with full-throated public support, out of the blue with no provocation. The only ones I can think of, other than Nazi Germany, would be the Armenian Genocide, Khmer Rouge, and the Soviet Union (basically Russian) genocides of the Cossacks, Poles, Chechens, Lithuanians (basically everyone nearby) - ie, Stalin's handiwork.

The Holocaust, like those other cases i listed, was not a case of citizens "rampaging, completely out of control". It was based on centuries of organized hatred, and it was planned, carefully managed, and carried out with calm, quiet, and brutal efficiency. That's ENTIRELY different from people "rampaging, completely out of control", because when people do rampage, it's usually not because of a specific belief or ideology... it's just plain old hate, like racism or whatever, triggered by some kind of catastrophic event and blowing up and going out of control. Cases like the Holocaust were the product of specific beliefs that were shared by the majority of the people who carried out the genocide, not triggered by a catastrophe but rather beliefs that were carefully cultivated and argued and presented in a way that made everyone agree with their violent and bloody conclusions.

deanhills wrote:
With Stalin it also had nothing to do with Christianity.

Actually, that's technically not true. The Russian Revolution specifically targeted the Christian church... because the Christian church had been collaborating with the Tsar in repressing the people. (The same happened in most communist revolutions, like in South America and Cuba - the church was considered "the enemy of the people" because it was propping up and supporting the dictators, and getting rich by doing so. Most communist revolutions brutally went after Christian churches... but not just for the hell of it, but rather because those same churches had been helping the dictators they were trying to overthrow. Stalin was the same.) Technically, while Stalin didn't carry out his genocides with Christian support - quite the opposite - he was retaliating against the centuries of repression and collaboration with the Tsars that Christianity had engaged in. He wasn't pro-Christian like Hitler, he was anti-Christian (which is part of why he was Hitler's bitterest enemy)... but that's because his enemies - supporters of the former dictatorship - were Christian.

deanhills wrote:
With him it was yet another case of pure unadulterated struggle for power and killing millions in order to stay in power.

Nonsense. The Jewish people in Germany and Poland were no threat at all to Hitler's power. He had power... converted it to absolute power... and then he went after the Jewish people. He did not carry out the Holocaust to grab power; in fact, carrying out the Holocaust cost him power, because the resources he wasted on it would have been better spent on the war effort.

In fact, Hitler was unique in this way. If you look at the genocides carried out by Stalin or Pol Pot, the people they targeted were either supporters of the previous regime or a direct threat to the new regime. The Jews that Hitler targeted were never a real threat at all - there was no state of Israel at the time or anything like that; no organized body of Jewry - he just targeted them out of hate, specifically the antisemitism he learned from his Christian upbringing. That's why people use Hitler as the figurehead of evil and crazy, and not Stalin or Pol Pot... he was uniquely evil and crazy.
deanhills
Indi wrote:
So no, the Holocaust was not a product of "humanity". It was clearly, and explicitly, a product of Christianity.
I still disagree. Persecuting the Jewish for Hitler was a means to an end, and not an end in itself. It was to purify the Aryan race - according to Hitler's Manifest - Der Kampf and also to solidify the Party's power and control over their assets. Theirs was a case of pure and simple human greed in its ugliest form. Christianity didn't really come into it. There were no prayers for the Jews when they were killed in the concentration camps and no decency when they were on a killing and looting rampage.

Indi wrote:

There are very, very, very few cases in history that are even remotely similar to what happened in Nazi Germany. You can find small outbreaks of racially or religious motivated violence here and there, and even the odd spontaneous genocide carried out haphazardly in times of extreme anarchy, and of course the attempted annihilation of an enemy when invading their territory... but you can count on one hand the number of times in history when an entire nation organized a massive, planned genocide against a subset of their own population, out in the open, with full-throated public support, out of the blue with no provocation. The only ones I can think of, other than Nazi Germany, would be the Armenian Genocide, Khmer Rouge, and the Soviet Union (basically Russian) genocides of the Cossacks, Poles, Chechens, Lithuanians (basically everyone nearby) - ie, Stalin's handiwork.
I disagree again. In Africa there are plenty of cases where whole tribes have been killed, on a systematic planned basis. There are the Hereros in Namibia (by Germans of a previous generation), the Matebele in Zimbabwe immediately after Mugabe took office. During the Mfecane in southern Africa whole tribes were systematically exterminated for power and control. We had a more recent genocide in Rwanda as well. I'm sure if I had more time I'd find many other examples in other areas of the world.

Indi wrote:
deanhills wrote:
With Stalin it also had nothing to do with Christianity.

Actually, that's technically not true. The Russian Revolution specifically targeted the Christian church... because the Christian church had been collaborating with the Tsar in repressing the people. (The same happened in most communist revolutions, like in South America and Cuba - the church was considered "the enemy of the people" because it was propping up and supporting the dictators, and getting rich by doing so. Most communist revolutions brutally went after Christian churches... but not just for the hell of it, but rather because those same churches had been helping the dictators they were trying to overthrow. Stalin was the same.) Technically, while Stalin didn't carry out his genocides with Christian support - quite the opposite - he was retaliating against the centuries of repression and collaboration with the Tsars that Christianity had engaged in. He wasn't pro-Christian like Hitler, he was anti-Christian (which is part of why he was Hitler's bitterest enemy)... but that's because his enemies - supporters of the former dictatorship - were Christian.
Stalin targeted anything and every one who stood in his way of power and control. He wasn't anti-christian. He was a Marxist first and foremost, and anti-religion and anti-anything that stood in the way of implementing Marxist ideology - the Stalin way. If you want a specific example of Stalin genocide, then take the Ukraine where he deliberately caused a famine to systematically destroy opposition to his rule. An estimated 7 million people were starved to death as a consequence. That is one million more than the estimated 6 million Jewish deaths in WWII German concentration camps.
Indi
deanhills wrote:
Persecuting the Jewish for Hitler was a means to an end, and not an end in itself. It was to purify the Aryan race - according to Hitler's Manifest - Der Kampf and also to solidify the Party's power and control over their assets. Theirs was a case of pure and simple human greed in its ugliest form. Christianity didn't really come into it. There were no prayers for the Jews when they were killed in the concentration camps and no decency when they were on a killing and looting rampage.

First of all, the facts disagree with you. The Nazi soldiers actually wore "Gott mit uns" on their belts, for goodness's sake! They had chaplains at Dachau!!! Frankly, you're stuck between a rock and a hard place here. Either Hitler really was Christian - which would be bad for your case, obviously - or he was just faking Christianity to get the people to do what he wanted... but if that is true that means that it really WAS Christianity that made the people go along with his goals!

There's really no way to get around the facts here. Nazi Germany was ~97% Christian (and ~1% were Jewish), which means - no matter which way you slice it - the people actually carrying out the Holocaust - the people actually running the death camps and personally murdering Jewish people - they were Christians. That's simply the inescapable truth. Of course, that doesn't mean that they were inspired by Christianity, though it does at least mean that they didn't see a conflict between Christianity and the Holocaust.

But as for whether they were inspired by Christianity... again, the facts speak for themselves. Why did they target Jewish people so specifically? Yeah, sure, they had their pseudoscientific racial theories, but if their only goal was - as you want to try to pretend - to purify the "Aryan race", why did they spend so much time and effort going after Jewish people specifically? Even though they did consider other races inferior, it was always the Jews that they really hated on... for example, Hitler wrote: "Jews were responsible for bringing Negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate." What the hell, right? Why specifically choose Jewish people as especially bad, over all other races? As long as you keep denying the obvious Christian inspiration, this question will continue to be a mystery to you.

There's one other thing: you keep repeating this claim that Hitler persecuted the Jewish people to "solidify power" and whatnot. Again, the facts contradict you. Hitler was voted Chancellor in January of 1933... in March 1933 84% of ministers voted to give him full control of the government... in August 1933 90% of the population voted to merge the presidency and the chancellorship to make him Führer, giving him total and absolute power. But here's the thing... he didn't start persecuting the Jewish people until AFTER all of that. They did call for a boycott of Jewish businesses, and ban Jewish people from government jobs, in April 1933 (after Hitler was Chancellor but before he had absolute power), but the real persecution didn't begin until 1935, when they passed the Nuremberg Laws (actually, the real persecution didn't begin until after the Kristallnacht in 1938).

Hitler simply didn't need the Holocaust - or the Nuremberg Laws, or the ghettos or anything else like that - to "solidify power". His power was solid. Absolutely and completely solid, as of August 1933 - supported by 90% of the German electorate, and legally untouchable. He could have sat on his ass and done nothing for the rest of his life, and died an old, old man still the absolute ruler of Germany. He had absolutely no need to persecute the Jewish people. He did it out of hate, not expedience.

deanhills wrote:
Indi wrote:

There are very, very, very few cases in history that are even remotely similar to what happened in Nazi Germany. You can find small outbreaks of racially or religious motivated violence here and there, and even the odd spontaneous genocide carried out haphazardly in times of extreme anarchy, and of course the attempted annihilation of an enemy when invading their territory... but you can count on one hand the number of times in history when an entire nation organized a massive, planned genocide against a subset of their own population, out in the open, with full-throated public support, out of the blue with no provocation. The only ones I can think of, other than Nazi Germany, would be the Armenian Genocide, Khmer Rouge, and the Soviet Union (basically Russian) genocides of the Cossacks, Poles, Chechens, Lithuanians (basically everyone nearby) - ie, Stalin's handiwork.
I disagree again. In Africa there are plenty of cases where whole tribes have been killed, on a systematic planned basis. There are the Hereros in Namibia (by Germans of a previous generation), the Matebele in Zimbabwe immediately after Mugabe took office. During the Mfecane in southern Africa whole tribes were systematically exterminated for power and control. We had a more recent genocide in Rwanda as well. I'm sure if I had more time I'd find many other examples in other areas of the world.

Okay, as usual you are being selective in what you read. I didn't just say "systematic and planned", because that would describe just about any genocide in history. (Hell, that's more or less the definition of genocide.) I said the Holocaust was unique not just because it was systematic and planned, but because it wasn't against a far and distant enemny, and because it had the full and open support of the population. Those things are important because it is easy to tacitly support a genocide thousands of kilometres away when you don't have to see it happening... it's a lot harder to actually be neighbours with the people being rounded up and murdered - that takes a special kind of evil. And it's easy to accept a genocide carried out against a hated enemy you've been fighting for a long time... it's a lot harder to accept a genocide started in a time of peace against an "enemy" that never once made any move of aggression against you - again, that takes a special kind of evil.

None of those cases you mentioned measure up. Mugabe, for example, had his 5th Division carry out their massacres out of sight of the public... not with open public support. The Rwandan genocide was carried out in a state of anarchy after the murder of the president (not to mention it was really part of the larger Rwandan Civil War... not just a genocide carried out for the hell of it). A genocide carried out in a hot rage - or secretly - is nothing like what happened in Nazi Germany. That was a genocide carried out with a cold resolve, started for no reason whatsoever - the Jewish people were no threat to the Nazi party or Germany, and (despite what you say) the Nazis had no rational reason to go after them - and largely carried out with the full and open support of the public.

deanhills wrote:
Stalin targeted anything and every one who stood in his way of power and control. He wasn't anti-christian. He was a Marxist first and foremost, and anti-religion and anti-anything that stood in the way of implementing Marxist ideology - the Stalin way. If you want a specific example of Stalin genocide, then take the Ukraine where he deliberately caused a famine to systematically destroy opposition to his rule. An estimated 7 million people were starved to death as a consequence. That is one million more than the estimated 6 million Jewish deaths in WWII German concentration camps.

Again, selective in what you read. You are not disagreeing with what i wrote, merely expanding on it.
LxGoodies
Tend to agree with Indi about this, on historical grounds ! antisemitism is firmly rooted in European culture and it was often used by the church to scapegoat the jews. The nazi's revived ancient myths about the jews. They were e.g. accused of sacrificing (or even eat) christian children and the use of blood of christian children for magic rites. This has a medieval background, with roots that date back to Roman/Greco times.. and certain bible stories..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

During the Spanish inquisition 15th-16th century, jews were a primary target. They fled to Flanders and the Netherlands, to escape from the church and the Spanish king. At the time, in Germany, the Lutheran flavour of the reformation kept embracing antisemitism.

In the 20th century, church and nazi's had a common agenda.

Bolsjewism needed to be fought, according to pope Pius XI. The Reichskonkordat of 1933 deserves to be mensioned,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

.. which constituted a direct political alliance between Hitler and the church. In exchange for support for the early Rheinland and Elzas annexations, the Hitler regime allowed the church to keep its schools and clerical hierarchy in Germany. In regard to the jews, this Wiki lemma contains an interesting Hitler quote,

Hitler wrote:
I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the Church, and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.


Of course, Hitler himself cannot be called "a christian" of any kind, he rather believed in astrology. But Hitler simply made use of the existing, cultural context which was christian. This discussion about Hitler and christianity appears often on the Dutch political forums. Of course, christians are on one side, the atheists on the other side. No one wants to be associated with A. Hitler !
Bikerman
Quote:
Of course, Hitler himself cannot be called "a christian" of any kind,

Of course? Really? That sounds like a classic example of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy to me. I presume you think Hitler was 'of course' not a Christian because of his actions?
The obvious and unanswerable retort to that is 'who has the authority to declare such things?'. Clearly YOU don't and nor do I. Who are YOU to say that suchabody was 'clearly not' a Christian? What criteria do you use? Mass Murder? Well, check the old testament buddy and you will find that a surprising number of Christian icons fail that test.
Unless and until you can declare what defines a Christian (and you can't - I'd be prepared to bet serious money on it) then you have no credibility when stating who is/was and isn't/wasn't a Christian.
LxGoodies
Welcome back Bikerman, I already missed your qualifications toward me Razz

I've hesitated to put the last sentence in my submit above (most times it is raised by my opponents), but a true Scotsman allegation is too easy in this case. Yes, Hitler used to be catholic, he was raised a catholic by his mother.. and he sought catholic and protestant allies. Among his nazi followers, he expressed less criticism about the church than other hardliners in the nazi party.

However, it would ihmo be quite absurd to call this person "a christian", considering the ideology Hitler invented and the role he played in Nazi Germany. Nazism was (is) in itself religious in nature. For the Germans, it served as a replacement, the nazi party and Hitler himself contributed to their saint-like image and they adhered to a mythology about Germany, with "the German people" as natural superior leaders of the world. The nazi party did not need any god, Germany was god.. it determined the future of Europe and mankind.. Hitler was the saviour of Germany. Again: Hitler believed in astrology and the tree of life. He transformed Germany and attempted to transform German culture as well.
Bikerman
Thanks for the welcome back.
Once again you resort to words like 'absurd' without justification. Hitler defined himself as a Christian repeatedly. The Catholic church never excommunicated him. They DID excommunicate Goebbels - for marrying a non-catholic. Hitler was, therefore, a Catholic and nothing he did could change that. It is not absurd to say this - it is a matter of basic catholic doctrine. I know this from personal experience since I am considered to be a catholic myself and, despite repeated attempts to 'de-christianise' myself, I have been told that once baptised then nothing can 'un-baptise' me. This is central to Christian doctrine - it is based on the parable of the prodigal son, which basically teaches that ANYONE can enter Christian Paradise providing that, before they die, they truly repent of their sins. Since you have no way to know whether Hitler did or did not repent before he took the poison then you have no justification to say he was not Christian. The very most you can say is that he behaved in a non-Christian manner but, to be frank, even that claim is dodgy given that killing Jews was regarded as a Christian duty by the Church at some points in history.....are you going to say that the Popes who supported anti-Semitism were not Christian? Where do you stop? More importantly, what gives YOU the authority to make such pronouncements?
As for astrology - red-herring matey and I'm surprised you even TRY that argument. Do you really mean to say that the millions of Christians who follow their horoscopes are not real Christians?
LxGoodies
Dunno.. I've not had any similar experience.. Sad actually it sounds quite sad to be forced into some belief category, just because you're supposed to be born with it. I was never baptized, nor circumcised or whatever ball and chain ritual the clergy made up to force these things upon people.

As for Adolf Hitler, I strongly doubt Hitler died with any clergy present. Of course anyone born in a catholic nest in 1884 would have been "a christian" in the sense you just described. Not getting baptized was quite rare at the time. Nevertheless I suppose we'd have to regard the man as a convert to nazism, which was a religion in itself. A dangerous one.

""What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfilment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence."[263]

In his memoirs, Hitler's chief architect Albert Speer recalled that when drafting his plans for Hitler's "new Berlin", when he told Hitler's private secretary Martin Bormann that he had consulted with Protestant and Catholic authorities over the locations for churches: "Bormann curtly informed me that churches were not to receive building sites.[220]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Hitler's theism sounds a bit.. opportunistic to me

Bikerman wrote:
Do you really mean to say that the millions of Christians who follow their horoscopes are not real Christians?

You say you're familiar with catholicism.. now in their catechism part 3, catholics are told expicitly to reject all forms of divination, astrology, etc. Astrology is a belief system quite different from theism.
Indi
LxGoodies wrote:
As for Adolf Hitler, I strongly doubt Hitler died with any clergy present.

I am not sure, off the top of my head, of the precise population of the bunker, but the fact that there were no clergy present shouldn't really come as a surprise. It was a top secret military command bunker. They didn't just let anyone in there.

I would hope you don't question whether George W. Bush is a Christian, but do you seriously think that when he goes into the war room to oversee combat, that he takes a preacher in there?

LxGoodies wrote:
Hitler's theism sounds a bit.. opportunistic to me

That's mostly because of relentless efforts by Christians to whitewash the Christianity of Nazism. A lie repeated often enough becomes truth.

The key thing about contemporary comments about Hitler's religion are that they always seem to reflect whoever they're made by. If the person speaking is an atheist, they describe how Hitler hated Christianity. If the person speaking is a Christian, Hitler was an absolutely assured and pious solider of God. This shouldn't be shocking - the man was a politician; this is what they do.

Funny enough, you see the handful of comments by contemporary non-believers that question Hitler's religiosity over and over and over and over... you never see the THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of comments by believers that talk up what a good Christian Hitler was.

It's certainly true that Hitler had some complaints about Christianity, but name me a major Christian figure in history (or in the present) who didn't. Even today we have Pope Francis spouting off about the culture of entitlement amongst the Catholic elite, and who accuses them of getting stuck on doctrinal issues to the detriment of reaching people. If a historical figure criticized Christianity, then today they will say they were a firm believer who spoke out against the faith losing its way in the material world... if Christians today like them. If they don't like them, they say they were a fake Christian.

It's also probably true he did use his Christianity opportunistically, but name me a major Christian figure in history (or in the present) who didn't. Every single president the United States has ever had (in modern history) has practically vomited their Christian creds over everyone who would listen. EVERY single one. Ironically, the ones who Christians suspect most of faking it are not the ones who were most over-the-top about it - or the most transparently opportunistic about it. The ones that Christians suspect most of faking it are always the ones they don't like. Hmmm.

Consider this, too: NOBODY questioned Hitler's Christianity while he was alive and in power. Popes spoke fondly of his faith. People only started "doubting" once they discovered how absolutely horrible he'd been. Think about that.

LxGoodies wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Do you really mean to say that the millions of Christians who follow their horoscopes are not real Christians?

You say you're familiar with catholicism.. now in their catechism part 3, catholics are told expicitly to reject all forms of divination, astrology, etc. Astrology is a belief system quite different from theism.

The list of things Catholics are not supposed to do, but still go ahead and do regularly, is probably longer than would fit in an encyclopedia. Everyone knows Catholics are supposed reject astrology. Everyone also knows that millions and millions of devout Catholics use it anyway.
Bikerman
Just to add to Indi's post - the notion that a Catholic who disobeys doctrine is, de facto not a Christian is, frankly, absurd. What do you think the sacrament of confession is for? EVERY Catholic - including the Pope* - breaks doctrine routinely.
As a spectacular example consider that the most Catholic country in Europe - Italy (81% Catholic by total population) also happens to have one of the lowest birth rates in Europe. Unless you happen to believe that the rhythm method of contraception is somehow massively effective in that one country then the only logical conclusion is that most of the Catholics are routinely and knowingly going against core doctrine and using condoms and/or the pill.
The again consider that a huge number of Christians in the developing world - particularly Africa and India - combine Christianity with apparently contradictory beliefs taken from indigenous non-Christian faith systems. This includes everything from Voodoo to Spiritualistic beliefs.
According to your reasoning there are pretty much zero Christians in the world......

* The Pope confesses his transgressions to his private confessor (Fr Berislav Ostojic).
LxGoodies
Indi wrote:
I would hope you don't question whether George W. Bush is a Christian, but do you seriously think that when he goes into the war room to oversee combat, that he takes a preacher in there?

Oww I don't doubt Bush is a christian. In fact I don't know many Americans who are not. Children learn prayer in school, I suppose it's obligatory..

Quote:
LxGoodies wrote:
Hitler's theism sounds a bit.. opportunistic to me

That's mostly because of relentless efforts by Christians to whitewash the Christianity of Nazism. A lie repeated often enough becomes truth.

These people are mostly my opponents, I do not advocate that. However, I do view nazism itself as a near-religion.

Ideology often becomes a religion, when its followers become fanatic.. and ANY ideology of the last 200 years has its roots in christian culture anyway.

Quote:
The key thing about contemporary comments about Hitler's religion are that they always seem to reflect whoever they're made by. If the person speaking is an atheist, they describe how Hitler hated Christianity. If the person speaking is a Christian, Hitler was an absolutely assured and pious solider of God. This shouldn't be shocking - the man was a politician; this is what they do. Funny enough, you see the handful of comments by contemporary non-believers that question Hitler's religiosity over and over and over and over... you never see the THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of comments by believers that talk up what a good Christian Hitler was.

Eej who would want a "Godwin" spell over his beliefs.. I spent 45 pages on a Dutch forum explaining the difference between socialism and nazism. My opponent insisted upon a straight line from Marx to Hitler.. and Hitler NOT being a christian of whatever kind. He kept stressing that... not because he was a christian, but because he insisted christianity to be superior to islam. Whenever Hitler believed anything it would have been Allah. He documented that opinion with stories about Jerusalem mufti's etc.

Hitler is token bad guy. People tend to place him in the corner they regard as BAD and outside their own corner, which they have decided to be GOOD.

Quote:
It's certainly true that Hitler had some complaints about Christianity, but name me a major Christian figure in history (or in the present) who didn't. Even today we have Pope Francis spouting off about the culture of entitlement amongst the Catholic elite, and who accuses them of getting stuck on doctrinal issues to the detriment of reaching people. If a historical figure criticized Christianity, then today they will say they were a firm believer who spoke out against the faith losing its way in the material world... if Christians today like them. If they don't like them, they say they were a fake Christian.

Q.E.D. of course.. according to believers Hitler's catholicism must be fake. And (if you don't mind) according to militant atheists like Bikerman and Indi, Hitler must have been a christian. There is some logic in this, isn't it ?

Quote:
Consider this, too: NOBODY questioned Hitler's Christianity while he was alive and in power. Popes spoke fondly of his faith. People only started "doubting" once they discovered how absolutely horrible he'd been. Think about that.

+1 agree, but I'm not a christian of any kind Razz I would not feel insulted

Quote:
LxGoodies wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Do you really mean to say that the millions of Christians who follow their horoscopes are not real Christians?

You say you're familiar with catholicism.. now in their catechism part 3, catholics are told expicitly to reject all forms of divination, astrology, etc. Astrology is a belief system quite different from theism.

The list of things Catholics are not supposed to do, but still go ahead and do regularly, is probably longer than would fit in an encyclopedia. Everyone knows Catholics are supposed reject astrology. Everyone also knows that millions and millions of devout Catholics use it anyway.

Maybe there are 2 kinds of christians ? People who think they are and people who behave accordingly ? the latter being quite rare ?
Bikerman
Quote:
And (if you don't mind) according to militant atheists like Bikerman and Indi, Hitler must have been a christian. There is some logic in this, isn't it ?

Some misunderstanding here.
I NEVER raise Hitler's Christianity as a debating point. I happen to think it is a dumb and dead-end debate. What I have to do repeatedly, however, is deal with theist assertions that Hitler was an atheist and that the holocaust is an example of atheistic governance. That cannot be allowed to stand, and all I do is point out that such a claim is absurd by showing that it is actually LESS absurd to make the counter-claim that Hitler was a Christian.

As I said, saying Hitler was NOT a Christian is nearly always an example of 'No true Scotsman' - it relies on some external judgement of Christian worthiness by people who have no authority or mandate to make such judgements and, worse, can only maintain their judgement by selectively ignoring the fact that their criteria for judgement would necessarily mean that most Christians are not Christian at all.

I have no problem with the notion that atrocity can result from non-religious authority - I have never denied it. There are valid examples which I'm happy to discuss. Hitler's Germany is NOT one of them.
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
I NEVER raise Hitler's Christianity as a debating point. I happen to think it is a dumb and dead-end debate.

Same.

I don't care whether Hitler was a Christian or not. I don't think many atheists do. It's Christians who obsess over whether this or that historical figure was Christian or not. They're the ones who invent the ridiculous "deathbed conversion" myths where obvious nonbelievers convert at the last minute. You don't hear atheists talking about "deathbed deconversions".

And as i've pointed out time and time again, it doesn't really matter. 97% of Nazi Germany was Christian, and roughly ~1% was Jewish, so unless you believe that all of the atrocities of the Holocaust were done by 2% of the German population (which is ridiculous), then the Holocaust itself must have been carried out by Christians. (And that's completely ignoring the enormous support Hitler had. Hitler's popularity grew every election he had, and through most of the war. It only started to decline after Stalingrad in 1943. And the Holocaust started in 1941.) And the whole idea of the Jewish people being evil is a Christian idea to begin with - Jewish persecution was invented by Christians, and Hitler knew it quite well.

So it doesn't even matter if Hitler was Christian or not - it changes absolutely nothing with respect to Christianity's guilt for what happened. Even if Hitler was atheist, the Holocaust is still clearly a product of long-standing Christian bigotry.

Bikerman wrote:
What I have to do repeatedly, however, is deal with theist assertions that Hitler was an atheist and that the holocaust is an example of atheistic governance. That cannot be allowed to stand, and all I do is point out that such a claim is absurd by showing that it is actually LESS absurd to make the counter-claim that Hitler was a Christian.

Yes, that. That is why i bother to discuss the issue at all. I really don't think it matters if Hitler was Christian or not, but i will not sit idly by and have people use a lie to discredit what i believe.

I also generally have a problem with people using lies and false reasoning... which you have to do to claim that Hitler was an atheist. That doubles my motivation to respond. It's not just that it's a question of Hitler or a question of atheism. I would also respond if someone tried to argue that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Hindu. I would respond any time to any lie i see.

Put another way, if Christians want me to stop pointing out the mountains of evidence that Hitler was Christian, then stop calling him atheist. Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'.
jajarvin
Indi wrote:
There are very, very, very few cases in history that are even remotely similar to what happened in Nazi Germany. You can find small outbreaks of racially or religious motivated violence here and there, and even the odd spontaneous genocide carried out haphazardly in times of extreme anarchy, and of course the attempted annihilation of an enemy when invading their territory... but you can count on one hand the number of times in history when an entire nation organized a massive, planned genocide against a subset of their own population, out in the open, with full-throated public support, out of the blue with no provocation. The only ones I can think of, other than Nazi Germany, would be the Armenian Genocide, Khmer Rouge, and the Soviet Union (basically Russian) genocides of the Cossacks, Poles, Chechens, Lithuanians (basically everyone nearby) - ie, Stalin's handiwork.


Here something more: The Destruction And Transformation Of Indian Societies

Code:
  The various Indian peoples responded in many ways to the invasion of
America and the transformation of their societies. All of them suffered a
severe decline of population. This was a demographic catastrophe of incredible
proportions. On the main islands of the Caribbean, the Indian population had
virtually disappeared by 1540, a result of slaving, mistreatment, and disease.
In central Mexico, war, destruction, and above all disease brought the
population from an estimated 25 million in 1519 to less than two million in
1580. In Peru, a similar process brought a loss from 10 million to 1.5 million
between 1530 and 1590. Elsewhere in the Americas a similar but less
well-documented process took place. Smallpox, influenza, and even measles
wreaked havoc on the Indian population, which had developed no immunities
against these diseases.
Bikerman
The examples you cite are not relevant, let alone exemplars. Indi's point concerned a nation organising to destroy a sub-set of the population. The 'Indians' referred to in your quote (I'm presuming it is referring to Native American groups?) were never a sub-set of the European 'invaders' - they were culturally, socially & legally 'other' - barely considered human and certainly not considered 'citizens'.
Whilst I do not seek to minimise the tragedy of that particular genocide, it is not relevant to this particular strand of discussion.
LxGoodies
Indi wrote:
There are very, very, very few cases in history that are even remotely similar to what happened in Nazi Germany. You can find small outbreaks of racially or religious motivated violence here and there, and even the odd spontaneous genocide carried out haphazardly in times of extreme anarchy, and of course the attempted annihilation of an enemy when invading their territory... but you can count on one hand the number of times in history when an entire nation organized a massive, planned genocide against a subset of their own population

Bikerman wrote:
Indi's point concerned a nation organising to destroy a sub-set of the population.

The intent to genocide is NOT unique, the success of it was. Hitler lost the war.. BUT there were 6 million jewish casualties in the civilian population as a result of genocidal intent.. rare indeed

Genocidal intent, in itself, is not unique, not even rare.. happens every 5-10 years somewhere.. look at mr Karadjic, now on trial on the The Hague tribunal. He DID have the intention to practice ethnic clansing in the part of Bosnia that the Serbs intended to annexate. Srebrenica. Gaza bombings killing children.. Assad's poison attack on parts of Damascus.. Take into account atrocities like Central African Republic and Ruanda, people's rage directed toward a sub-set of the population (which is imho newspeak)

Why did history not show it earlier ? because Hitler had radio. Hitler even had television, for the elite. In modern times, it is more and more easy to organize a genocide. It could start on Facebook any day. As for genocidal intent there are quite some cases.. I've heard people on politics forums cry for atom bombs against ISIS. Anno 2015.
Bikerman
A 'subset of the population' is certainly not newspeak. It is a concise and unambiguous way of saying exactly what I mean to say - a group of citizens of a particular nation state defined by some shared characteristic or trait.
Indi
LxGoodies wrote:
The intent to genocide is NOT unique...

No one said it was. Once again, you're putting words in my mouth.

I'm well aware that genocidal intent is hardly rare, and i'm also well aware that there have been many, many actual genocides throughout history. What i said was that the particular type of genocide that happened in Germany is very, very rare, historically. Genocides are rarely:
  1. Carefully and calmly planned;
  2. Systematically executed;
  3. Done to a subset of the same population;
  4. Done for no measurable benefit; or
  5. Done in full sight of the general public, with broad support.
It is uncommon to have a genocide with one of those characteristics, and having just one of those characteristics is enough to make a genocide disturbing. Having multiple characteristics is horrifying: for example, the Rwandan genocide had #5... and maybe, if you stretch it, #4, but there were political reasons for the violence... you could argue it also had #3, but that's debatable because the two groups considered themselves separate nations lumped under one banner... some people have claimed that there was some kind of planning or organization, but even if there was it was obviously haphazard and very limited at best. Despite just having one or two of the characteristics, that genocide was so horrifying that dealing with it totally messed up one of our greatest generals and spawned two major award-winning films just a decade or two after it happened. The Central African Republic genocide (assuming you're talking about what's been going on the last few years) has NONE of these characteristics.

The Holocaust had ALL of those characteristics. That is why it is held up as the most horrific genocide in human history, not merely because of the numbers (the genocides in the Soviet Union amount to at least 4 times the Holocaust, and the genocide of the various American aboriginals outnumbers even that by an order of magnitude) or because it is recent history (off the top of my head i can think of at least 3 genocides of a million people or more that are more recent). It's because ALL of those features were present that the Holocaust is so shocking.

Even while it was happening the Nazis were astounded by it. There are several times in the writings of the perpetrators where they admit they had no idea how they were actually managing to pull it off. Several times they organized "performances" to fool the rest of the world about what was going on, and each time they did they thought "they're never going to fall for this"... yet each time, the world did. They were flabbergasted. Most people in Germany who didn't have their heads up their asses knew what was going on - they could see trainloads of Jewish people going out and trainloads of clothes, suitcases, and other possessions coming back - and apparently there was a vibrant black market selling things taken from victims, including even ghastly memorabilia like skulls and stuff made out of skin - and they all figured the rest of the world would clue in soon... yet to their bafflement they never did.

You can go ahead and try to spark off a genocide if that's your thing... but you will almost certainly fail to manage to get more than one or two of those characteristics... if that. Those things don't happen easily. With hate, it's not hard (relatively speaking) to rile people into a genocidal rage... but only against others - people in other areas; foreigners; aliens - it is VERY hard to get them to hate their next-door neighbours and people they live and work with enough to want to slaughter them. You'll also have a hell of a time getting people to sanction a genocide for no benefit whatsoever - it's not hard to get people on board with a genocide to wipe out an "enemy" they fear will wipe them... but it's a hell of a lot harder to get people to agree to a genocide that doesn't actually have any gain for them. What happened in Nazi Germany was very unique, and if it were easy to do, we would have had dozens of Holocausts since then... because there is no shortage of evil people who would love to repeat what the Nazis managed; but they've all discovered that isn't so easy to do.

All genocides are horrible, but the Holocaust was uniquely so, because it had all of these features which are so rare individually - because they're not easy to create... and it had all of them... together. You can count on one hand the number of times that has happened in history.
deanhills
Indi, logically if you say the "German" Holocaust is one of its kind, then it would suppose that the people behind the orchestration of it were one of a kind. Which I cannot accept, as all people are basically the same. They have the ability to do both good and bad deeds to various degrees including most horrible. You may think that the German Holocaust was a unique event for the simple reason that Germans had documented everything systematically and carefully. Hitler was also a mass propaganda genius, so eventually through the media left a careful written and photographed record. There was documentation available of all of their plans as well as the execution of their plans. On top of it the Jewish people made it their business to assemble as much documentation as they could as a legacy of a kind. Since they are superior in intelligence gathering, they were able to document what had been happening during the holocaust while it was happening, as well as after the event in a much more meticulous way than most targets of genocides would have been able to do, again creating the illusion of a one in a million type event, which really wasn't so unique. Accept for much heavier documented, recorded and the aftermath thoroughly promoted every where else in the world to this day. It was horrendous beyond description, but humanity has a very solid record of its ability to commit genocide and other crimes against humanity from the beginning of time. This atrocity also didn't just belong to the German people. There were others who were looking on while it was being committed. It brought out the worst and the best in all humans who had been touched by it while it had been happening. As genocides do to this day.

The genocide by famine I mentioned in the Ukraine - as one other example - resulted in millions of people who had been systematically killed by starving them - called holodomor. Challenge was lack of documentation to pinpoint the exact numbers. It was not as massively promoted in the West, nor as carefully documented as the German Holocaust had been by the Government in power, the opposite - Stalin liked to keep his killings secret. The genocide by famine was just one of many of his plans to rid himself of those who he thought opposed him and his policies. It was just as carefully planned and implemented and maybe even more brutal in certain respects than the German Holocaust had been.
http://www.holodomorct.org/
Indi
deanhills wrote:
Indi, logically if you say the "German" Holocaust is one of its kind, then it would suppose that the people behind the orchestration of it were one of a kind.

First of all, just putting "logically" in front of something does not make it logical. There is no reason a completely new and unique thing can't be created by relatively average people.

But as for the actual conclusion: All people are unique, as are all populations of people. You can't expect the same response to something by different groups. That should be obvious; just look around. When something major happens, different groups of people across the world react in very different ways.

deanhills wrote:
Which I cannot accept, as all people are basically the same. They have the ability to do both good and bad deeds to various degrees including most horrible.

If you want to speak in gross generalizations, you will almost never say anything that is wrong, but you will also never say anything that is meaningful. If you squint hard enough and ignore enough about the people and the situation that doesn't fit with your thesis, sure, everyone might look "the same". But they're really not.

If people and situations were generally the same everywhere, we'd expect to see a lot of homogeneity in the world. In reality, there's nothing of the sort. You can't seriously compare a random town in the US with a random town in Syria with a random town in Barbados with a random town in North Korea. You won't find anything but the most superficial and meaningless similarities. And that's just geographic diversity, never mind temporal diversity. There are certainly some universal truths about human behaviour, but not at the level of complexity you're talking about.

What happened in Germany won't necessarily happen ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. That's just ridiculous. There were very specific characteristics, situations, actors, histories, and triggers that set it off. You'd need to replicate most - if not all - of those things to set off a similar situation somewhere else.

It won't just take, for example, a charismatic ****** who wants to blame all of society's ills on some group - it's not that simple. In fact, that has happened pretty much EVERYWHERE. Even here in Canada there are tons of charismatic ****** who want to blame our problems on, say, Muslims, or aboriginals, or francophones/anglophones, etc. etc. - even Jewish people! So whence the Canadian genocides? By your theory, we should have seen several by now.

But as i said, your theory is ridiculous. Every nation of non-trivial size that's been around for more than a few decades has had dozens of Hitler-wannabes. Yet almost none of them have had even the slightest hint of what happened in Germany. Usually the wannabe-Hitlers are just considered fringe lunatics and ignored.

It's not the German people who are the problem, either. It's not like they haven't had a ton of Hitler-wannabes since 1945, blaming Germany's problem on anything from Polish people, to foreigners in general, to Muslims in particular, etc. etc., yet they didn't have anything like the Holocaust before in their history, and they haven't had a repeat since.

Your theory just makes no sense in light of the facts. Clearly there was something unique about Germany in the 1920s-1930s... all the right pieces of the puzzle were in place. And the result was horrifying.

No doubt that if all puzzle pieces were in place somewhere else, we'd see a repeat. But history has shown that getting all those pieces in place is definitely not easy.

deanhills wrote:
You may think that the German Holocaust was a unique event for the simple reason that Germans had documented everything systematically and carefully.

I gave a bulleted list of the reasons why i think the Holocaust was fairly unique. None of those items mentioned that it was "well documented".

In fact, i never mentioned documentation once. Once again, you're putting things in my mouth i never said, or even implied.

There is nothing really interesting about the fact that they documented what they were doing. What is interesting is the planning... the forethought... not the documentation as it happened. They literally built factories to carry out the killings. The genocide was a whole industry. That is not the kind of thing you see in your average genocide. In fact, the vast majority of genocides are actually quite spontaneous and chaotic - often to the point where people aren't even sure that's what happened.

deanhills wrote:
The genocide by famine I mentioned in the Ukraine - as one other example - resulted in millions of people who had been systematically killed by starving them - called holodomor. Challenge was lack of documentation to pinpoint the exact numbers. It was not as massively promoted in the West, nor as carefully documented as the German Holocaust had been by the Government in power, the opposite - Stalin liked to keep his killings secret. The genocide by famine was just one of many of his plans to rid himself of those who he thought opposed him and his policies. It was just as carefully planned and implemented and maybe even more brutal in certain respects than the German Holocaust had been.
http://www.holodomorct.org/

*facepalm*

Once again, you would have been spared embarrassment if you'd actually read and responded to what i wrote, rather than what you think i wrote. I actually mentioned that... in a reply to you... as one of the rare examples of a genocide similar in spirit to the Holocaust! You even responded to it (although you seem to have missed the actual content of what i wrote and fixated instead on how Christianity was involved)! Look:
Indi wrote:
... you can count on one hand the number of times in history when an entire nation organized a massive, planned genocide against a subset of their own population, out in the open, with full-throated public support, out of the blue with no provocation. The only ones I can think of, other than Nazi Germany, would be the Armenian Genocide, Khmer Rouge, and the Soviet Union (basically Russian) genocides of the Cossacks, Poles, Chechens, Lithuanians (basically everyone nearby) - ie, Stalin's handiwork.

Okay, sure, i didn't SPECIFICALLY mention the Ukrainians - i listed four other groups then just got tired - or the actual word "holodomor". But i think they're pretty much covered under "Stalin's handiwork".

Yes, that situation was very similar to the Holocaust in a lot of ways (not identical obviously - the Holocaust had many unique characteristics that no other genocide in history had). No, it has nothing to do with "documentation" or the lack thereof. It has to do with the things that i actually listed: it was systematically planned and executed, on a subset of the (Soviet) population, for no material benefit, and with widespread public support.
Related topics
Sex Before Marriage
Another religions
Does God Want you to be rich?
Does God exist?
Christianity: Why does God ask for kindness to others?
Where does God come from?
A question for all you monotheists.
Religion: The Root of All Evil?
Does the existance of "God" really matter?
Einstein proves Religion
DOES GOD EXIST?-- the grand old debate
What does God do all day?
Are there any limits to religion?
Do you have any faith that there is a "soul"
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.