First of all I'd like to declare that I don't have anything about any race! In school I've been learning about nazis, and Hitler and stuff lately. So it was only for about a week and I still had interest in that stuff, so I went to google.com, and typed in "nazi". I was suprised the results I found. I thought that racism was pretty much over in U.S, but I was wrong. | Quote: |
| One BIG thing that stood out from all the rest, is the immensity of the non-White invasion of America - EVERYWHERE I went, non-Whites of every "kind"...from brown meztizo's, to asians, arabs and "indescribable's"...made me wish for the "good ol'days", when it was ONLY negroes that we had to deal with! lol Sadly, much of America is turning more and more into a third-world dumping ground. And so many "whites" are sadly being infected into this system's "lifestyle" as well. |
I found this at http://www.americannaziparty.com/news/index.php?report_date=2006-05-14 | mantasx wrote: |
First of all I'd like to declare that I don't have anything about any race! In school I've been learning about nazis, and Hitler and stuff lately. So it was only for about a week and I still had interest in that stuff, so I went to google.com, and typed in "nazi". I was suprised the results I found. I thought that racism was pretty much over in U.S, but I was wrong. | Quote: | | One BIG thing that stood out from all the rest, is the immensity of the non-White invasion of America - EVERYWHERE I went, non-Whites of every "kind"...from brown meztizo's, to asians, arabs and "indescribable's"...made me wish for the "good ol'days", when it was ONLY negroes that we had to deal with! lol Sadly, much of America is turning more and more into a third-world dumping ground. And so many "whites" are sadly being infected into this system's "lifestyle" as well. |
I found this at http://www.americannaziparty.com/news/index.php?report_date=2006-05-14 |
I hate Nazis and Hitler, he did so much of wicked and evil to God's nation the Jews! Well atleast he is paying his price now! 
| Whong wrote: |
| I hate Nazis and Hitler, he did so much of wicked and evil to God's nation the Jews! Well atleast he is paying his price now! |
Yes, he's paying the same price as Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Bertrand Russell, Linus Pauling, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Isaac Asimov, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Robert Heinlein, Tolstoy, Gene Roddenberry, Mark Twain, Galileo Galilei, John Lennon and Thomas Jefferson, among others. Yay merciful God.
Oh wait, hang on.
Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic to be exact. His schtick was "Positive Christianity", which is "Christianity with all the negative influences (the Jews) removed".
Nevertheless, Hitler was indeed a Christian, and thus, by the doctrine of Christianity, his sins are forgiven and he is going to heaven.
The others that I listed are going to hell.
Yay just and fair God. | Indi wrote: |
| Whong wrote: | | I hate Nazis and Hitler, he did so much of wicked and evil to God's nation the Jews! Well atleast he is paying his price now! |
Yes, he's paying the same price as Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Bertrand Russell, Linus Pauling, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Isaac Asimov, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Robert Heinlein, Tolstoy, Gene Roddenberry, Mark Twain, Galileo Galilei, John Lennon and Thomas Jefferson, among others. Yay merciful God.
Oh wait, hang on.
Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic to be exact. His schtick was "Positive Christianity", which is "Christianity with all the negative influences (the Jews) removed".
Nevertheless, Hitler was indeed a Christian, and thus, by the doctrine of Christianity, his sins are forgiven and he is going to heaven.
The others that I listed are going to hell.
Yay just and fair God. |
Really, I've never ever heard of Hitler being a Christian! But well, being a Christian is one thing, and being saved an other! If he truly believed in Jeusu Christ and that He is the Son of God, so then maeby so!
I don't know, well we'll see it once we get there! 
| Indi wrote: |
Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic to be exact. His schtick was "Positive Christianity", which is "Christianity with all the negative influences (the Jews) removed". |
Just because you proclaim yourself a christian doesn't make it so. I'm fairly sure that "Do not murder" is a christian commandment against mass genocide.
| AftershockVibe wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic to be exact. His schtick was "Positive Christianity", which is "Christianity with all the negative influences (the Jews) removed". |
Just because you proclaim yourself a christian doesn't make it so. I'm fairly sure that "Do not murder" is a christian commandment against mass genocide.
|
1.) I never said Hitler "proclaimed" himself to be anything. He was a Christian because (according to the information we've collected about him, and there's plenty) that's what he was. Whether you believe he was or not is irrelevant. According to the bible, accepting Jesus means your sins are forgiven and you're on your way to heaven. All sins, remember? You don't get to decide who is or who is not a Christian, you don't get to say that this man's sins are too much to forgive, and you certainly don't get to say who gets saved. There's only one "person" that gets to do that, and he's laid out the instructions for what to do to be forgiven. All the evidence we have suggests that Hitler accepted Jesus as his saviour. Thus, he's a Christian. Thus, he's saved.
2.) Technically, Hitler didn't murder. He designed and put in place a system that caused the deaths of millions. That's not murder - not by the English definition of the word, and not by the definition of the original Hebrew word in the text.
3.) Besides, even if what Hitler did is murder in God's eyes, so what? Even if he really was a murderer six million times over, his sins will be forgiven, remember? There is only one unforgivable sin in the bible, and as long as Hitler didn't do that (which is doubtful, given what we know of his character and his beliefs), he's waiting for you in heaven.
Sorry, but I didn't make the rules.
What I find interesting is that, so far here, and everywhere else I have brought this up, all reaction and objection has been to the idea of sharing heaven with Hitler. Rather un-Christian, I should think - shouldn't you be forgiving, and hating the sin and not the sinner, and all that? But what's really interesting is that, so far... no one has expressed any regret or objection to the idea that all of those good people I listed are going to hell. The idea of sharing heaven with Hitler provokes a lot of reaction. The idea that Sagan, Edison, Einstein and Lennon are going to hell to suffer eternal damnation doesn't even raise an eyebrow.
Doesn't that strike you as... cold?"Heil Hitler!"
I really hate him, but still interested.
Im deaf myself and he commanded his bloody Nazis
to elimiate deafs, disabled and jews.
No way Im meeting him in heaven, as I got no religion and
I have done unforgivable sins.
Somehow, learning about the Nazi is interesting, I dunno why really.
~DopeyCriz
(Don't put yourself off cos im deaf ) @ Indi
I can’t tell for sure where Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, Bertrand Russell, Linus Pauling, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Isaac Asimov, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Robert Heinlein, Tolstoy, Gene Roddenberry, Mark Twain, Galileo Galilei, John Lennon and Thomas Jeffersonare. I doubt however that Hitler or anyone so interested in there own will are serving that of our Lord. Finding “evidence” that Hitler practiced Christian traditions or used the Bible to justify his atrocities does not make him a follower of Jesus.
And I wouldn’t describe hell as “paying a price”. You seem to feel, by sarcastically quoting “yay merciful God” that God is sending people to a place to be punished. This idea is preached be some Christians but it seems much more to me, through study of the Bible, that hell is simple a way to describe the end of a path other than following the Lord.
Yeh cool hitler in heaven
him and some other dictators might sit down for a cuppa dont ya recon yeh thay can go over what havoc thay coused on earth LOL
look islam teaches that all muslims will enter heaven but there are muslims who will suffer hell first couse of there acctions on earth
I personally don't believe that Hitler is in heaven, but God knows!
Didn't Hitler comit suicide! 
If he did, he most probably isn't in heaven! | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| I doubt however that Hitler or anyone so interested in there own will are serving that of our Lord. Finding “evidence” that Hitler practiced Christian traditions or used the Bible to justify his atrocities does not make him a follower of Jesus. |
If he accepted Jesus as his saviour, then by the words of Jesus himself, he's going to heaven. John 3:16, remember? Practicing traditions or not means nothing. Being self-serving or not also means nothing, because his sins are forgiven if he accepts Jesus as his saviour. All sins. Same as with you or anyone else.
It's as simple as this: if Hitler did accept Jesus as his saviour - and all indications suggest he was a devout believer, which makes that highly likely - then his sins are forgiven and he's going to heaven. The rules for him are the same as the rules for you. Just because you don't like Hitler doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the same treatment.
So Hitler's probably in heaven. There goes the neighbourhood.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| And I wouldn’t describe hell as “paying a price”. You seem to feel, by sarcastically quoting “yay merciful God” that God is sending people to a place to be punished. This idea is preached be some Christians but it seems much more to me, through study of the Bible, that hell is simple a way to describe the end of a path other than following the Lord. |
Yeah, right, the "end" of that path is eternal suffering in fire. And, assuming that these people aren't going to waltz into eternal suffering and stay there without someone forcing them, it follows that someone sends them there. Who? Obviously God (who else is there, after all). And for what? For choosing to believe in something other than what God wanted. If your study of the bible missed that part, or the part where God calls those who are being sent to hell "cursed", you need to do a more thorough study. I could quote you the verse(s), but I'll trust your studies will lead you to them eventually.
How can you not call it paying a price? How can you not call it punishment? Eternal bliss if you do a thing, eternal suffering if you don't. Are you saying you show up at the gates of heaven, and God's representative says, "you didn't believe in what God said, so you are being rewarded with an eternity of agony and endless suffering and misery in a sulphurous fire"? Punishment seems to me to be the word that works there. All of those people I named have been "cursed" by God to suffer eternal damnation because of what they chose to believe. Not what they chose to do, what they chose to believe.
| Whong wrote: |
Didn't Hitler comit suicide!
If he did, he most probably isn't in heaven! |
There is only one unforgivable sin, and suicide ain't it.@ Iindi
My point is that if Hitler truly had accepted Jesus as his savior he would not have lived like he did. The tree is known by its fruit. Jesus himself described people who assumed they would end up in the kingdom but would be turned away, a verse quoted earlier in the thread, because they where not sincere. Accepting Jesus is not simply muttering a special spell.
Yours argument that for God “sending” people to hell could also be used to argue that because a student did not attend school the school punished him by “sending” him to a low paying job. I doubt hell is a little box somewhere that God locks up all the people that did not to his bidding. It seems much more likely to me, through study of the Bible and not listening to evangelists, that hells description is the default location of humanity. Hell being the region outside of God’s realm. Heaven is a place that we are all invited to all we need to do is accept.
I'd be more upset if I thought all those folks were really going to suffer for all eternity but since I'm not a Christian I believe they will be reincarnated.
Back to the original subject:
| mantasx wrote: |
First of all I'd like to declare that I don't have anything about any race! In school I've been learning about nazis, and Hitler and stuff lately. So it was only for about a week and I still had interest in that stuff, so I went to google.com, and typed in "nazi". I was suprised the results I found. I thought that racism was pretty much over in U.S, but I was wrong. | Quote: | | One BIG thing that stood out from all the rest, is the immensity of the non-White invasion of America - EVERYWHERE I went, non-Whites of every "kind"...from brown meztizo's, to asians, arabs and "indescribable's"...made me wish for the "good ol'days", when it was ONLY negroes that we had to deal with! lol Sadly, much of America is turning more and more into a third-world dumping ground. And so many "whites" are sadly being infected into this system's "lifestyle" as well. |
I found this at http://www.americannaziparty.com/news/index.php?report_date=2006-05-14 |
If you were able to go this long without realizing that racism is not dead in the U.S. you are either not from the U.S. or very lucky. Prejudice is still a big problem in the world at large and not only in the U.S.. The person that does not have some prejudice one way or the other, but takes everyone they meet on a case by case basis is very enlightened indeed.
Somefolks really try hard to do better, and some folks give up and let their prejudice rule their lives. It's not even limited to race, but also to religion, polotics and ideas. Think about it sometime. Perhaps you have a perception of something that is wrong, it doesn't have to be a serious wrong, maybe something like believing that Oreos actually taste better if you don't open them up first and eat the creamy middle. If you happen to be an "eat the creamy middle first" person such people may seem like heretics to you. Then let's say one day someone saves your life, someone that is a good person with some very abmirable qualities. To show your appresiation you give that person a large package of Oreos only to discover that not only they eat them whole but they like to dip them in coffee instead of milk...... What do you do then? Do you hate them for their misuse of Oreos, or re-evaluate your opinion about the nature of such blatent Oreo abuse? | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| My point is that if Hitler truly had accepted Jesus as his savior he would not have lived like he did. The tree is known by its fruit. Jesus himself described people who assumed they would end up in the kingdom but would be turned away, a verse quoted earlier in the thread, because they where not sincere. Accepting Jesus is not simply muttering a special spell. |
By that logic, no one's going to heaven unless they accept Jesus mere moments before they die. Because, according to the bible, humans are horrible sinning bastards by nature and nowhere is it written that accepting Jesus makes you stop sinning. Hitler sinned after being "born again", and presumably so has everyone else who was ever born again. Including you. So if your post-born-again sins can be forgiven, why not his?
You keep claiming that Hitler's belief in Jesus was in some way not sincere, and I keep repeating that all indications we have suggest that it was. Hitler was opposed to the church, because he saw it as a corrupt institution, but he was very much a believer in Jesus and the bible (in fact, he had very much in common with Martin Luther - more that you would think at first).
Hitler sincerely believed that his actions were not sins, or when they were, they were justified by higher forces in the name of a higher cause, and thus were forgiveable - and he based this belief partly on his interpretation of the bible. This was much like the Christians who "questioned" people in the various inquisitions - they were well aware that they were sinning, but believed they would be forgiven because their sins were necessary to do "God's work".
If Hitler was wrong about that, then he was mistaken. I can understand God taking a dim view of deliberate, malicious sinning when you know it's wrong and you're just doing it because you feel like it. But if God can't forgive the sins of stupidity, how merciful is he really?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Yours argument that for God “sending” people to hell could also be used to argue that because a student did not attend school the school punished him by “sending” him to a low paying job. I doubt hell is a little box somewhere that God locks up all the people that did not to his bidding. It seems much more likely to me, through study of the Bible and not listening to evangelists, that hells description is the default location of humanity. Hell being the region outside of God’s realm. Heaven is a place that we are all invited to all we need to do is accept. |
Your analogy comparing where people go when they die to where people work after they leave school age (and your claim that my argument could be applied to a school) is bizarrely flawed.
First, no schools promise to control or even affect where you eventually work. No school says that if you work well and follow the rules you will be guaranteed a sweet job - at best, they claim this is more likely. No school says that if you don't work well and don't follow the rules you will be guaranteed a bad job - again, at best, they simply claim this is more likely. By contrast, God is the final word on everything, so whatever happens to you and wherever you end up in life or after, it was God's will.
Second, no school picks your job or career path. If you do poorly in art, no school will bar your path to becoming an artist. God, on the other hand, asserts that he is the one and only decision maker in where you go after death. He promises that if you stick to his program he'll let you into heaven, but he's the one making the decisions and setting the rules, and even when you follow the rules he still reserves the final judgement.
No, my argument doesn't apply to schools deciding what job you get. But it could be used to argue that because a child did not behave themselves according to their parents' rules, his parents "punished" him by sending him to the corner (or by not taking him to Wonderland, if you prefer). Why? Because in that case, the parent has stated that the child's behaviour (or lack thereof) and choices affect where he goes - just like how God has stated that your actions (or lack thereof) and choices affect where you go. The parent also has final say on where you go (or don't go) - just like God does with regards to your afterlife. Thus, my argument applies - and... makes sense, doesn't it? Or do you claim that the child's default destiny was to be punished, and only good behaviour allowed him to get his reward (or lack of punishment, at least)?
You are desparately trying to absolve God of guilt for sending people to hell... after God has, in the bible, explicitly declared that he is the ultimate resonsibility for that decision. Sorry, doesn't fly. You are also trying to water down the idea of hell, calling it simply anything that is not heaven (are we in hell now?)... despite the fact that God and/or Jesus on several occasions describe hell as a place of everlasting torture in "sulphurous fire". I don't see simply refusing an "invitation" to an exclusive club (which is essentially how you have described heaven and the process of going there) warranting eternal suffering. You are also claiming that it is simply our "default destination", and God, out of the goodness of his "heart", has simply offered us something else and better... but that's complete balderdash given that God created us, which, if you're argument is correct, implies that he deliberately chose to make the default destiny for all of us a place of infinite torment... and only after the fact offered a small minority of us a means of escaping that destiny.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| I'd be more upset if I thought all those folks were really going to suffer for all eternity but since I'm not a Christian I believe they will be reincarnated. |
Thank you for saying that! It's always troubled me far more that anyone could be sentenced to eternal suffering (it troubles me when anyone gets sentenced to any suffering, but I realize that this is not a perfect world and we are not omnipotent so we can't make it so without some difficulties, so sometimes we must sacrifice one for many). I had many reasons for rejecting Christianity, but none so strong as this one. I would rather spend an eternity in mild dissatisfaction with complete ****** like Hitler, Stalin and (ugh) even Pat Robertson, than in infinite bliss and happiness while even one person suffers eternal torment. As distateful to me as it is to have to co-exist with horrible people, it is still more distasteful - even intolerable - for even even the most horrible of us suffer like that forever.
| Tex_Arcana wrote: |
| If you were able to go this long without realizing that racism is not dead in the U.S. you are either not from the U.S. or very lucky. |
"you are either not from the U.S. or very lucky"... aren't those the same thing? (Kidding. ^_^)
But yeah, you're right. But this goes a little beyond just racism. For Nazis to continue to exist in this day and age after all that has happened - for people to continue using those names and symbols (although, of course, as you pointed out, the underlying ideals are unfortunately common) - that's pretty ballsy. Of course, plain old racism in America is hardly a revelation.
Still, mantasx, if you want your eyes to be really opened, keep digging. There's a lot more complexity - and, yes, even darkness - under the pretty surfaces of any country if you really look. Official policy and popular beliefs are hardly all there is to America - or anywhere.
Why not start here, since you're already on that track with the ANP (American Nazi Party): http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
(And, if you just want a laugh, check out the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party. They are environmentally-concerned, culturally tolerant Nazis. Official logo:
^_^) | Quote: |
| Nevertheless, Hitler was indeed a Christian, and thus, by the doctrine of Christianity, his sins are forgiven and he is going to heaven. |
Only if he was a practicing Christian, and truly sorry for his sins. Being sorry for your sins is called repenting, and if he did, then yes, he would get to share in the glory of God. By the way, how do you know he was a Roman Catholic? He obviously didn't follow Christianity very well. "Thou shalt not kill" comes to mind.
And yes, you'd be surprised the racism that exists today. It's nowhere near ended in the U.S. or anywhere.@ Iindi
You know, you have a funny habit of dancing around the issue and outlining the blatantly obvious. My point is simply that God is not “sending” anyone to hell any more than school is “sending” student to low paying jobs or with your example, a parent is not making a child grow up to be irresponsible for not following their rules. Hell is no punishment. A punishment, as with your example of sending a child to the corner, is a correction of poor behavior. Sending a child to a corner for the rest of his life won’t correct anything.
Hitler was a brilliant, paranoid psychopath. He had people killed on a whim. If he did not believe what he was doing was wrong it was because he rationalized it. He could be in Gods grace currently, God is certainly willing to forgive. Look at Paul, he killed plenty of God’s people and God forgave him. The bottom line is that Hitler was belligerently and arrogantly following his own ambition, which is not the path to God, whether he “believed” it was or not.
| Indi wrote: |
| You are also claiming that it is simply our "default destination", and God, out of the goodness of his "heart", has simply offered us something else and better... but that's complete balderdash given that God created us, which, if you're argument is correct, implies that he deliberately chose to make the default destiny for all of us a place of infinite torment... and only after the fact offered a small minority of us a means of escaping that destiny. |
Read my point carefully as I reiterate it. God created us so he would have someone to love him on their own will. He gave us free will to follow him or not, we are all welcome. Here on earth not following him is not so bad because we have all kinds of other things to fulfill us. Upon release from this world we will continue on the path WE chose either to Gods presents or outside of it. The torment described in the Bible is not a special oven God built but simply a place outside of his presence. Being totally out of the Lord’s presence I think is the torment.
This is of cores simply a conclusion that I have drawn.
However, what if your notion is true, and God made us, he made a heaven, and made a hell. Then he implemented a little contest to see who could find there way to the good spot. And, oh-yay, when someone makes him made he sends them to hell too.
WELL, HE IS GOD!!!! It is his prerogative. Will you rebel against him saying, I think this is wrong, I know better! I’m voting for Satan in the next election. | Soulfire wrote: |
| By the way, how do you know he was a Roman Catholic? |
As I've said, repeatedly, we have loads of evidence, ranging from his own writings to testimony from people that knew him, statements made publicly and privately to friends, etc. etc. etc.
Do I know he was a Christian? Of course not. No one does but the big man himself. But all evidence seems to suggest that he was a believer, and quite devout - and there was no real reason for him to fake it. Thus, it is logical to assume that he knew what he was supposed to be doing to get into heaven, believed that it should be done, and did it one way or another. We can also safely assume he spent his last hours "wrapping" up any spiritual loose ends, given what we know of his behaviour then - so very likely he got down on his knees with Eva and sincerely asked for forgiveness. Thus, it is most likely that he is going to heaven. Do I know any of this? No, but given what I do know, it is the most likely scenario by far.
The point I was making was that being a complete ****** on Earth doesn't necessarily rule out your being in heaven. So what if Hitler caused the deaths of millions? God forgives all sins (except the one).
| Soulfire wrote: |
| He obviously didn't follow Christianity very well. "Thou shalt not kill" comes to mind. |
*shrug* No one's perfect. As I've said, he was a devout believer, and certainly with the Russians banging on his door he had a lot of time to think about whether he was going upstairs or downstairs in the big after. Given the threat of eternal damnation, it's reasonable to believe that he got down and sincerely apologized for everything, and thus was forgiven and granted a ticket to heaven.
Honestly, Soulfire, what baffles me is the hypocrisy of the whole thing - everyone who has commented so far (with one exception, and he was not Christian - and I have noticed the same results when I have pointed out the same thing other places) has denounced Hitler as unfit for heaven either openly or implied same. What happened to charity? Hate the sin not the sinner? Doesn't anyone want Hitler to go to heaven - at the very least to spare him eternal torment? I'm not even Christian - hell, according to some points of view, I'm not even moral because of what I (don't) believe - and I don't want to see him suffer. Hitler represents the antithesis of everything I believe, but I'd put up with an eternity of having to live with Hitler if it meant sparing him an eternity of torture. I'd do the same for any intelligent being. Where's the Christian compassion? Not a one has even said anything like "Hitler is most likely going to hell... which is unfortunate". Not one. In fact, some have even expressed glee that a thinking being is going to be tormented for eternity!
You gotta help clear this up for me, Soulfire (I'm glad you popped in here >_<) - everything I've seen of what you write demonstrates clarity of thought and a deep understanding of your religion and the implications of its teachings. So tell me, am I way off base here in calling this position hypocritical? To claim to be adhering to a doctrine of love and compassion on the one hand, and demanding - even celebrating - the eternal torment of beings that think and feel on the other. Isn't that duplicitous? Or am I missing something here?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| You know, you have a funny habit of dancing around the issue and outlining the blatantly obvious. My point is simply that God is not “sending” anyone to hell any more than school is “sending” student to low paying jobs or with your example, a parent is not making a child grow up to be irresponsible for not following their rules. Hell is no punishment. A punishment, as with your example of sending a child to the corner, is a correction of poor behavior. Sending a child to a corner for the rest of his life won’t correct anything. |
Yeah, well you've got a funny habit of denying the blatantly obvious, so I feel the need to point it out.
Case in point, that hell isn't punishment. You claim that "punishment" is something that corrects poor behaviour. Nonsense. How does standing in the corner remove the desire or the impulse to, for example, throw toys? Or make noise? Or... anything??? It doesn't. It prevents bad behaviour by acting as a threat. What happens is that standing in the corner means the child is prevented from playing or doing anything else that they want. It's "null" time to the child, and once they understand what that actually feels like - which, being children, they can only do by experiencing it - they understand it to be something that should be avoided if at all possible. Thus, the threat of the corner is hung over their heads to influence their behaviour. To scare them into behaving the way their parents - the ones who can send them to the corner - want them to behave.
How is hell different? It is described as the worst torment imaginable, with burning in sulphurous flame, endless thirst, weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc. Being adults, we don't need to experience it to appreciate that it is something that we most certainly want to avoid. Thus the threat of hell is held over our heads to influence our behaviour. To scare us into doing what God - the one who decides whether or not we go to hell - wants us to do.
Thus, hell is punishment.
But the really silly part is that I didn't even need to bother to show you the logical fallacy of your position, given that the bible explicitly calls hell eternal punishment.
Whatever "studies" of the bible you're doing, I really think you should put more effort into them. There are many nebulous things about the concept of hell as presented in the bible to be sure - but there is absolutely no vagueness about the idea that hell is a place of eternal torment where you are sent as punishment for not doing what God wants you to do. That much is stated pretty explicitly.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| This is of cores simply a conclusion that I have drawn. |
Based on...? I assume you have some biblical evidence from your "studies" to back up your conclusion. Right? I mean, it's not just wishful thinking that has nothing to do with what's actually written in the bible, right?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
However, what if your notion is true, and God made us, he made a heaven, and made a hell. Then he implemented a little contest to see who could find there way to the good spot. And, oh-yay, when someone makes him made he sends them to hell too.
WELL, HE IS GOD!!!! It is his prerogative. Will you rebel against him saying, I think this is wrong, I know better! I’m voting for Satan in the next election. |
*blink* Are you freaking kidding me?!?! Of course I would rebel!!! I would be morally bound to rebel! I could not live with myself for a minute - let alone an eternity - if God were actually like that and I did nothing about it. I would use every milligram of my power and abilities to find God and stop him. I couldn't do anything else in good conscience. If I succeed, then I would have saved potentially millions of people from an eternity of torment. And if I fail, I burn. But I would rather burn for an eternity knowing that I tried to stop that kind of suffering than live in heaven for an instant knowing that I did nothing about it.
Would you be ok living with yourself in heaven, knowing that God was sentencing people to eternal torment just because they displeased him? Could you turn your back on their suffering? Could you possibly accept God as your leader, trust his word, and just do as he tells you to do knowing that he was arbitrarily sending millions to endless torture?
I find those questions particularly relevant here, actually, but I won't say why just yet. Astute readers should see where this is heading. | Quote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: | | You know, you have a funny habit of dancing around the issue and outlining the blatantly obvious. My point is simply that God is not “sending” anyone to hell any more than school is “sending” student to low paying jobs or with your example, a parent is not making a child grow up to be irresponsible for not following their rules. Hell is no punishment. A punishment, as with your example of sending a child to the corner, is a correction of poor behavior. Sending a child to a corner for the rest of his life won’t correct anything. |
Yeah, well you've got a funny habit of denying the blatantly obvious, so I feel the need to point it out.
Case in point, that hell isn't punishment. You claim that "punishment" is something that corrects poor behaviour. Nonsense. How does standing in the corner remove the desire or the impulse to, for example, throw toys? Or make noise? Or... anything??? It doesn't. It prevents bad behaviour by acting as a threat. What happens is that standing in the corner means the child is prevented from playing or doing anything else that they want. It's "null" time to the child, and once they understand what that actually feels like - which, being children, they can only do by experiencing it - they understand it to be something that should be avoided if at all possible. Thus, the threat of the corner is hung over their heads to influence their behaviour. To scare them into behaving the way their parents - the ones who can send them to the corner - want them to behave.
How is hell different? It is described as the worst torment imaginable, with burning in sulphurous flame, endless thirst, weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc. Being adults, we don't need to experience it to appreciate that it is something that we most certainly want to avoid. Thus the threat of hell is held over our heads to influence our behaviour. To scare us into doing what God - the one who decides whether or not we go to hell - wants us to do.
Thus, hell is punishment.
But the really silly part is that I didn't even need to bother to show you the logical fallacy of your position, given that the bible explicitly calls hell eternal punishment. |
What you are describing is revenge. A punishment is ment to correct. You cant give a correction for eternity.
| Quote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: | | This is of cores simply a conclusion that I have drawn. |
Based on...? I assume you have some biblical evidence from your "studies" to back up your conclusion. Right? I mean, it's not just wishful thinking that has nothing to do with what's actually written in the bible, right? |
Based on.... as I wrote earlier, HOW hell is described in the bibble with emphasis on being "cast out" "removed from God's presence".
| Quote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: | | However, what if your notion is true, and God made us, he made a heaven, and made a hell. Then he implemented a little contest to see who could find there way to the good spot. And, oh-yay, when someone makes him made he sends them to hell too. |
| Quote: | | WELL, HE IS GOD!!!! It is his prerogative. Will you rebel against him saying, I think this is wrong, I know better! I’m voting for Satan in the next election. |
*blink* Are you freaking kidding me?!?! Of course I would rebel!!! I would be morally bound to rebel! I could not live with myself for a minute - let alone an eternity - if God were actually like that and I did nothing about it. I would use every milligram of my power and abilities to find God and stop him. I couldn't do anything else in good conscience. If I succeed, then I would have saved potentially millions of people from an eternity of torment. And if I fail, I burn. But I would rather burn for an eternity knowing that I tried to stop that kind of suffering than live in heaven for an instant knowing that I did nothing about it.
Would you be ok living with yourself in heaven, knowing that God was sentencing people to eternal torment just because they displeased him? Could you turn your back on their suffering? Could you possibly accept God as your leader, trust his word, and just do as he tells you to do knowing that he was arbitrarily sending millions to endless torture?
I find those questions particularly relevant here, actually, but I won't say why just yet. Astute readers should see where this is heading. |
The trouble with your ferver is that God is not an elected figure. He CREATED you. Good = God's will, It is not an invention by people based on their own imediate desiers.
You seem to be very unwilling to step out of your own frame of thought. You seem convinced that our Lord is producing a reality TV show that sends inocents to some place where they are actively tourchered for Gods fancy.
Maybe YOU should run for god. Satan has 1/3 of the angels, the fallen ones that where cast out with him when he chalanged God. Perhaps you could convince some from both sides that you have a superior idea of what GOOD is.
Anyway, my main point that you seem to be stumbling over is that hell is simmply being outside of God's presence, that is why it hurts, and you end up there because that is the path you chose on earth, the path of ovoiding his presence. If you turn your back on him he does the same.
Would you rather he remove your free will? He gave it to you, you know. So you could come up with these morals you would be bound by to rebel against him. I fear you may be too close to the trees Indi.attempt to get back on Nazi topic. An incredibly smart friend of mine did some studying on a few Nazis on wikipedia, you can check it out here.
I post this to remind people that Nazi is a political party, and not all people who carried the name Nazi were all about slaughtering people. | Indi wrote: |
| Hitler was a Christian - a Roman Catholic to be exact. His schtick was "Positive Christianity", which is "Christianity with all the negative influences (the Jews) removed". |
i think you should not be speaking of things that you don't know. Hitler was NOT a catholic. had you ever heard about the german faith movement?? well, it was NOT a catholic movement at all.. in fact, maybe you don't know that concentration camps were not just for jews (yes, the great majority were jews) but some catholic priests were also sent there... i really don't care if you're not a christian, just don't invent stuff ok?
| Indi wrote: |
Nevertheless, Hitler was indeed a Christian, and thus, by the doctrine of Christianity, his sins are forgiven and he is going to heaven.
The others that I listed are going to hell.
Yay just and fair God. |
you don't know nothing about christianity and its doctrine, really.... you're not going to hell just because you're not a christian, and neither you go to heaven because you're a christian... christians can go to hell as well as non christians to heaven... you really have to revise that concept...
and another last thing:
| Indi wrote: |
| "Christianity with all the negative influences (the Jews) removed" |
we come from the jews. they can NEVER be a negative influence.
so please, if you want to speak about catholicism or christianism in general, learn about them before.[/code] | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| What you are describing is revenge. A punishment is ment to correct. You cant give a correction for eternity. |
Oh yeah? Then pray tell, how does capital punishment "correct"? Hm?
Anyway, what I described is most certainly not revenge. Punishment is applying negative consequences on someone as a response to unwanted behaviour. Let's see if hell fits that description. Can it be described as negative consequences? Yes. Is it applied by someone? Yes, God causes people to be sent to hell by not allowing them into heaven (using your description). Assuming God is capable of allowing everyone into heaven (and if he really is all-powerful, of course he is), then everyone he denies entry he is condemning to hell. Is it applied in response to unwanted behaviour? Yes, it is applied by God in response to not doing what God wants you to do. Thus, hell is punishment.
You seem to have your own little definitions for words like "punishment" that are not at all related to their actual English definitions. "Punishment" is not correction, and a punishment certainly isn't intended to correct. At best, the threat of punishment is intended to prevent unwanted behaviour (but then, that applies to hell, too - the threat of hell is what makes not doing what God says bad). Funny enough, the dictionary agrees with me, not you: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=punishment
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| The trouble with your ferver is that God is not an elected figure. He CREATED you. Good = God's will, It is not an invention by people based on their own imediate desiers. |
I don't care what he did to or for me, or who he is. If my mother and father were making people suffer for eternity, I'd stop them, too. It doesn't matter who is doing evil. If evil is being done, then the right thing to do is try to stop it. By my definition, people being forced to suffer torments for eternity is evil. I don't care who is doing it. They should be stopped.
Of course, by your logic, people suffering for eternity in hell is "good", because that's God's will. And before you argue: yes, it is God's will. Because he has the power to stop it - he has the power to do anything - and he lets it happen. So, is that what you believe? People suffering for eternity in hell is good?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Maybe YOU should run for god. Satan has 1/3 of the angels, the fallen ones that where cast out with him when he chalanged God. Perhaps you could convince some from both sides that you have a superior idea of what GOOD is. |
I have no interest in taking over God's position. Just in stopping his crimes. I also never claimed my idea of what good is is superior to anyone's. But don't you agree that allowing someone to suffer eternal torment when you have the power to save them is evil?
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Anyway, my main point that you seem to be stumbling over is that hell is simmply being outside of God's presence, that is why it hurts, and you end up there because that is the path you chose on earth, the path of ovoiding his presence. If you turn your back on him he does the same. |
So... you're just ignoring the verses about the eternal flames, hm?
Regardless, it's suffering and God can prevent it. Anyone who is aware of suffering and able to prevent it, but chooses not to do so, is at best not a perfectly good person.
But it's not just that God doesn't prevent the suffering - he is the one who decides who suffers. He has the capability to choose that no-one suffers, but he doesn't. He sends some to suffer for no other reason than that he feels they deserve it. Anyone who makes people suffer when they don't have to is evil.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Would you rather he remove your free will? He gave it to you, you know. So you could come up with these morals you would be bound by to rebel against him. I fear you may be too close to the trees Indi. |
*blink* Too close to the trees?
Why are you so offended that I'm using the free will and the ability to reason that was given to me? So far you haven't really answered any of the problems I've outlined - you've just implied that I want to challenge God for his position because I recognize that he's doing evil. So... what, if I was aware that my mayor was doing criminal acts and turned her and testified against her in court, it must mean that I want to be mayor? Is that the way you work? Anytime you see someone doing something wrong and do something to stop them, you're really just out for their job?
And they say I have no moral framework. -_-
| a_dubDesign wrote: |
| I post this to remind people that Nazi is a political party, and not all people who carried the name Nazi were all about slaughtering people. |
Specifically the "National Socialist" political party (which, if you take "National Socialism" in German, you can shrink to "Nazi" - if they had been in an English speaking country, they'd be called "Natsos" I guess >_<). Technically, the real Nazis didn't call themselves Nazis, because it was kind of an insult, like calling Communists "Commies".
a_dubDesign is right that not all Nazis were about killing, but also, you may not recognize "Nazism" by the word "Nazi", 卐 or plans to elevate the "master race" and kill all Jews. The social philosophies of National Socialism can appear in many different forms.
The general idea is that some people are "more equal" than others. According to Hitler's hierarchy, "Aryans" (he misused the word) were at the top, and Jews and Gypsies, among others, at the bottom - but the same philosophy can be applied to other hierarchies. The problems that arise in society arise because the "less equal" people are destabilizing the system, because they are more susceptible to baser urges, ignorance and other such failings.
Thus, democracy is actually problematic - it's better for the superior people to just sieze control by virtue of their own superiority, so as to prevent the undesirables from screwing up the system. So superior people should exercise their superiority and create a nation (or take over an existing one - same thing, really), and then kick out those who aren't up to the standards of that nation so that they can go form their own nations. If everyone in the world were a Nazi, then nations would be made up of "races" - the concept of "race" and "nation" would be interchangeable - and the dominant nations would be the ones made up of the most superior races. Nations made up of a mixture of races are doomed to failure, because a house divided cannot stand (to warp some famous words into context).
There are actually a lot of pseudo-Nazi governments and political parties in the world that don't actually bear the name or the 卐, and generally aren't quite as extremist. In general, things to watch out for include suggestions that any one race, religion, creed or people is superior to others (technically, true Nazism segregates by race alone, but the general idea can be applied to any kind of segregation without any real tweaking) - but also, more insidious, that any group is inferior. I know it sounds like the same thing, but in practice it's not. Most people won't miss the Nazi-esque flavour if you say "whites are superior", but you can get away with saying "Islam is the cause of problems in our country" without people picking up the implication. Also, watch out for elevating the "nation" over the rights of the people, or "might makes right" philosophies.
| elincinerador wrote: |
| i think you should not be speaking of things that you don't know. Hitler was NOT a catholic. had you ever heard about the german faith movement?? well, it was NOT a catholic movement at all.. in fact, maybe you don't know that concentration camps were not just for jews (yes, the great majority were jews) but some catholic priests were also sent there... i really don't care if you're not a christian, just don't invent stuff ok? |
I do know what I'm talking about, thank you. Hitler was a Roman Catholic by upbringing, but he was at odds with the Vatican during his rise to power. For this reason, he formed the Reich Church - which wasn't really a church but a group of churches who were all supposed to conform to certain national standards of "churchness" and remove Jewish influences and symbolism from Christianity, but the idea was abandoned very early on. Is that what you mean by the "German faith movement"? Hitler was certainly never a member of the Reich Church. He tried to found it, and then lost interest. That's about it.
Whether or not you can say he died a Catholic is surely debatable, but he was surely raised one. And whether or not he died a Catholic, according to the evidence he probably died a Christian.
You're also being misleading. Yes, millions of Catholics were killed in the concentration camps... but not for being Catholic. They were killed for being Polish, or various other things, like harbouring Jews.
| elincinerador wrote: |
| you don't know nothing about christianity and its doctrine, really.... you're not going to hell just because you're not a christian, and neither you go to heaven because you're a christian... christians can go to hell as well as non christians to heaven... you really have to revise that concept... |
I never said that - I said that according to the evidence, Hitler was a devout Christian. So it is reasonable to assume that he knew what he had to do to go to heaven, and that he sincerely believed in hell and was afraid of going there. So with that evidence, the logical conclusion is that Hitler would have asked forgiveness for his sins, and thus, been granted heaven. Thus, Hitler's probably in heaven.
I don't get what you're saying - are you saying that it's impossible for Hitler to be in heaven. Kinda blasphemous for you to be deciding that, isn't it?
| elincinerador wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | "Christianity with all the negative influences (the Jews) removed" |
we come from the jews. they can NEVER be a negative influence. |
Oh, don't be an idiot. -_- That was obviously Hitler's belief, not mine. See the quotes around it?
Come on. -_-This thread has been hijacked. It is no longer about Nazi's or racism. It is now about Hitler and whether or not he is in Hell and if Hell is a punishment or not.
Now fly this thread it Cuba (wait, that's a bit dated) to Lebenon (does anyone really hijack planes to Lebenon or is that just Chuck Norris movies?). Just take it anywhere as long as there aren't any Nazis around.
@Indi
| Quote: |
| Only if he was a practicing Christian, and truly sorry for his sins. Being sorry for your sins is called repenting, and if he did, then yes, he would get to share in the glory of God |
That's a quote from my above post. Did I imply or say that he wasn't going to heaven? Not at all, quite the opposite. Did I say I hate Hitler? No. I hate his crimes, and I disagree with his beliefs.
Where did I say that Hitler was unfit for Heaven? Nowhere! So you can't call me hypocritical. | mantasx wrote: |
| I thought that racism was pretty much over in U.S, but I was wrong. |
You are definitely wrong I am afraid, and it's not just in the US but in every country, sadly. 
racism isn't over in the united states. The fact is it will never be over. There will always be somone out there that is raciest. Weather it be because you dont' have blue eyes and bright blond hair then you are not excepted.
I belive Hitler is in heaven. He may have done bad but he did a lot of good for Germany too. Like with George Bush. Do you think he is going to hell? He is killing many people. Most likely he will be sent to heaven. So I really think god excpeted him into heaven. Belive it or not he was a decent guy. He did a lot in the beginingg to help out Germany.
So really Hitler did nothing but started a way. The United States is like this too. If you didn't notice we are in Arab countries. So if you are saying was anti Jewish then George Bush must be anti Arab. So really he was at war. Rhat is all he was doing was starting a war. Wars have been started all over the years. So if you are saying if you start a war that you are going to hell. Then a lot of people have gone to hell because of this.
So nothing was really charged against him. There for he probley went to heavn. The only question with that is that he did commit sucide. As forces where coming apon him he commited sucide. If you want to read more on that read here | Indi wrote: |
| There is only one unforgivable sin, and suicide ain't it. |
What is that unforgivable sin?The unforgivable sin is to be blasphemous against the Holy Spirit.
| Quote: |
LUKE 12:10, "And everyone that says a word against the Son of Man, that will be forgiven; But he that blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will not be forgiven
MARK 3:29, "Whoever blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of everlasting sin."
MATTHEW 12: 31-32 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. [u]And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come". |
Basically, the Holy Spirit is what (tries to) bring God's message into your heart, which you can choose to accept or reject. If you reject any of the ten commandments, or die without accepting (the Christian) God as the sole God, the most powerful, the only one thing that matters, and the only one you should give importance to in your life (and death), you're commiting the unforgivable sin.
I've used the term "The Christian God" because the first 2 commandments are:
| Quote: |
1--"You shall have no other gods before me."
2--"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them. " |
The significant one is the second one.
@Indi, I can understand your point of view throughout this thread... I'm surprised I didn't notice this thread before. I don't like the idea of eternal damnation just because my free will gives me the choice to choose another God or another way of living. I believe strongly in karma and re-incarnation, but my belief is not in complete conformity with any one particular religion or ideology... it's a mixture of many (I've hoped that these are the good points and ideals of most religions). | lib wrote: |
| Quote: | LUKE 12:10, "And everyone that says a word against the Son of Man, that will be forgiven; But he that blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will not be forgiven
MARK 3:29, "Whoever blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of everlasting sin."
MATTHEW 12: 31-32 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. [u]And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come". |
Basically, the Holy Spirit is what (tries to) bring God's message into your heart, which you can choose to accept or reject. If you reject any of the ten commandments, or die without accepting (the Christian) God as the sole God, the most powerful, the only one thing that matters, and the only one you should give importance to in your life (and death), you're commiting the unforgivable sin. |
Hey Indi, I'm wondering how you came to that explanation of blasphemy against the spirit. | a_dubDesign wrote: |
| lib wrote: |
| Quote: | LUKE 12:10, "And everyone that says a word against the Son of Man, that will be forgiven; But he that blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will not be forgiven
MARK 3:29, "Whoever blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of everlasting sin."
MATTHEW 12: 31-32 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. [u]And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come". |
Basically, the Holy Spirit is what (tries to) bring God's message into your heart, which you can choose to accept or reject. If you reject any of the ten commandments, or die without accepting (the Christian) God as the sole God, the most powerful, the only one thing that matters, and the only one you should give importance to in your life (and death), you're commiting the unforgivable sin. |
Hey Indi, I'm wondering how you came to that explanation of blasphemy against the spirit. |
Actually, that's by me.
I read this article, and posted my interpretation of it.
I could be wrong however, since admittedly, it was a somewhat hastily written post. I'd like your input on this though... and perhaps a better explanation of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? | lib wrote: |
Actually, that's by me.
I read this article, and posted my interpretation of it.
I could be wrong however, since admittedly, it was a somewhat hastily written post. I'd like your input on this though... and perhaps a better explanation of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? |
I haven't looked into it to much, and I don't have much time right now to read through the link you posted, I'll be checking it out after the pistons game tonight.
I found two refrences to it in the International Standard Bible Encylopedia. One here under the heading of blasphemy, its point #3. And another mention is here, its a ways down, just do a find "blasphemy". I've just started checking this out and really have no clue where I stand on this issue. | Soulfire wrote: |
@Indi
| Quote: | | Only if he was a practicing Christian, and truly sorry for his sins. Being sorry for your sins is called repenting, and if he did, then yes, he would get to share in the glory of God |
That's a quote from my above post. Did I imply or say that he wasn't going to heaven? Not at all, quite the opposite. Did I say I hate Hitler? No. I hate his crimes, and I disagree with his beliefs.
Where did I say that Hitler was unfit for Heaven? Nowhere! So you can't call me hypocritical. |
I wasn't calling you or anyone hypocritical, I called the idea that some people are unwelcome in heaven hypocritical. The almost universal response to "Hitler is going to heaven" is some form of "he doesn't deserve it" or simply "impossible/unlikely/doubtful", when, according to my understanding of Christianity, it should be "good!" or "I hope so". Am I wrong?
| nam_siddharth wrote: |
| What is that unforgivable sin? |
lib is right, the unforgivable sin is to blaspheme against God, but I've never heard blasphemy described as he described it. As I understand it, to blaspheme against God is to speak against him, to insult him, ridicule him or just generally talk shit about him. | Indi wrote: |
| lib is right, the unforgivable sin is to blaspheme against God, but I've never heard blasphemy described as he described it. As I understand it, to blaspheme against God is to speak against him, to insult him, ridicule him or just generally talk **** about him. |
technically its the holy spirit. As I understand it, its related to the pharisees saying works of the holy spirit (miracles and whatnot) were actually works of the devil. | a_dubDesign wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | lib is right, the unforgivable sin is to blaspheme against God, but I've never heard blasphemy described as he described it. As I understand it, to blaspheme against God is to speak against him, to insult him, ridicule him or just generally talk **** about him. |
technically its the holy spirit. As I understand it, its related to the pharisees saying works of the holy spirit (miracles and whatnot) were actually works of the devil. |
From the links you posted, even I understood it to mean the same thing. So how does this apply to us now, in this age? | tidruG wrote: |
| a_dubDesign wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | lib is right, the unforgivable sin is to blaspheme against God, but I've never heard blasphemy described as he described it. As I understand it, to blaspheme against God is to speak against him, to insult him, ridicule him or just generally talk **** about him. |
technically its the holy spirit. As I understand it, its related to the pharisees saying works of the holy spirit (miracles and whatnot) were actually works of the devil. |
From the links you posted, even I understood it to mean the same thing. So how does this apply to us now, in this age? |
Yes thats true, the Bible states that blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is unfogivable! It does apply to us in this age, just as anything else stated in the Bible!
Have a blessed day! If indeed Hitler was a christian, I guess we know where he's going, but I find this highly unlikely. The official view of the nazi party of christianity was basically the whorship of an illegitimite son of an adulteress.
To support my claims:
| Quote: |
| "Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society." -Hitler |
| Quote: |
| "The German people, especially the youth, have learned once again to value people racially-they have once again turned away from Christian theories, from Christian teaching which has ruled Germany for more than a thousand years and caused the racial decay of the German Volk, and almost its racial death. -Himmler" |
| Quote: |
| "The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian; he views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race." -Joseph Goebbels |
I'm quite certain that Hitler is burning in hell right now!
Didn't he comit suicide, I remember hearing so in school!
God only knows where Adolf Hitler is right now! | Whong wrote: |
I'm quite certain that Hitler is burning in hell right now!
|
Then you say
| Quote: |
| God only knows where Adolf Hitler is right now! |
So do you or do you not know where he is?
| Whong wrote: |
| I'm quite certain that Hitler is burning in hell right now! |
Is that from the bible or a failure to love your enemy? | Whong wrote: |
| tidruG wrote: | | a_dubDesign wrote: | | Indi wrote: | | lib is right, the unforgivable sin is to blaspheme against God, but I've never heard blasphemy described as he described it. As I understand it, to blaspheme against God is to speak against him, to insult him, ridicule him or just generally talk **** about him. |
technically its the holy spirit. As I understand it, its related to the pharisees saying works of the holy spirit (miracles and whatnot) were actually works of the devil. |
From the links you posted, even I understood it to mean the same thing. So how does this apply to us now, in this age? |
Yes thats true, the Bible states that blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is unfogivable! It does apply to us in this age, just as anything else stated in the Bible!
Have a blessed day! |
O.......K
Let me rephrase that.
Like a_dubDesign posted, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is in relation to the Pharisees claiming that the works of the Holy Spirit are actually the works of the Devil/Satan.
There are no Pharisees as such today. Which means, I am asking... what does blasphemy against the Holy Spirit mean now? | tidruG wrote: |
Let me rephrase that.
Like a_dubDesign posted, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is in relation to the Pharisees claiming that the works of the Holy Spirit are actually the works of the Devil/Satan.
There are no Pharisees as such today. Which means, I am asking... what does blasphemy against the Holy Spirit mean now? |
Although there are no Pharisees, I would venture that it holds true for everyone, as the Pharisees thing was just a refrence to put it in context.Given Hitler's denouciation of the christian faith, I'm pretty sure he's burning in hell right now.
| Mannix wrote: |
| Given Hitler's denouciation of the christian faith, I'm pretty sure he's burning in hell right now. |
why the hell are we so obssesed about weither hitler is in hell or not? And probably an even better question, why are we sitting around saying hitler is in hell because of the massacre when we sit here talking about how we hate him, when jesus says hating someone is paramount to actually killing them.
The truth of the matter is, we don't know. What I do know for a fact is that if I get to heaven and see Hitler there, I'm going to rejoice because God's redeeming power is so strong that it even covers Hitler.Read my other post, I'm not saying he's in hell for the murder of millions, I'm saying he's there because he was not a christian. If indeed he was a christion and I get to see him in heaven, I don't really care.
| Mannix wrote: |
| Read my other post, I'm not saying he's in hell for the murder of millions, I'm saying he's there because he was not a christian. If indeed he was a christion and I get to see him in heaven, I don't really care. |
| Quote: |
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
--Adolf Hitler,
Mein Kampf (Volume 1, Chapter 2, Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna |
| Quote: |
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow 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."
--Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922
(Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942) |
There are far more links and other references and quotes which provide enough food for thought to entertain the idea that Hitler was a Christian, or at least believed himself to be one.
Some of this research has been compiled here.
Most of the quotes show that Hitler was a firm believer. If such, I do think Indi has a valid point. It is likely that before Hitler shot himself, he could very likely have got down on his knees and asked for forgiveness, and as we know that he did not commit the unforgivable sin, he was probably forgiven as well, and this leads to the conclusion that people who are going to Heaven are likely to bump into Mr. Adolf Hitler there.Though I've seen a few quotes with him denouncing christianity(I'd assume he was speaking against the establistments, not the faith itself), I guess they don't really hold up against a whole book supporting the contrary... Guess I should have read some quotes from Mien Kumpf before posting that... though I wouldn't be too sure that he couldn't have abandoned his faith once he took over Germany, I'll try to find some more quotes from his later years. It's also possible that his book was mearly propaganda designed to help his PR.
| Mannix wrote: |
| Though I've seen a few quotes with him denouncing christianity(I'd assume he was speaking against the establistments, not the faith itself), I guess they don't really hold up against a whole book supporting the contrary... |
Indeed. The one Hitler quote you provided is taken out of context. He's not denouncing Christianity, he's denouncing Jewish manipulation of Christianity. As he saw it, manipulation of and by Christianity was one of the means "the Jews" influenced good people. The solution for this was to remove Jewish influences from Christianity - because (all of what I'm writing here is Hitler's opinion, by the way, not mine -_-) Christianity itself was good. Once the evil Jewish influences were removed, what would be left is all the good stuff about Christianity - which he termed "positive Christianity".
You will find that most of Hitler's comments have this flavour, if you consider the wider context. One of his more famous quotes - from his later years - is something like "there is something unhealthy in Christianity". Often people use this quote as "proof" that Hitler was not a Christian. The fact of the matter is, that quote doesn't contradict his philosophy that Christianity had a problem that had to be removed - the Jewish influences - but was in itself good. You have to keep that in mind when reading Hitler's comments - he did have a problem with Christianity, but he believed the problem was fixable, and that Christianity itself was good. In Hitler's warped philosophy, Jesus was not a Jew, but Paul was (which is true, for what it's worth), and the lies and twisting of Jesus' teachings began there.
The Himmler quote has nothing to do with Hitler.
The Goebbels quote is just bizarre (a religion is a branch of a race?), but then, most of what Goebbels said and did made little sense. Goebbels himself was a Catholic (I think, I'm not sure), but he wanted to leave the church when it started (belatedly) opposing some of Hitler's actions. Hitler ordered Goebbels to stay with the church.
| Mannix wrote: |
| Guess I should have read some quotes from Mien Kumpf before posting that... though I wouldn't be too sure that he couldn't have abandoned his faith once he took over Germany, I'll try to find some more quotes from his later years. It's also possible that his book was mearly propaganda designed to help his PR. |
The problem with Hitler quotes from later years is that they become more and more bizarre and self-contradictory. It's hard to figure out exactly what went on in his mind most of the time, starting from around 1942ish. Often in the same day, Hitler would say "A is evil, B is good", then turn around hours later and say the exact opposite - or more often do the exact opposite. Especially towards the end, you could be Hitler's closest buddy one day and a traitor to the nation the next (case in point, Himmler). Possibly it was just stress from fighting the world. Myself, I am always skeptical of interpreting Hitler quotes made after 1939 (when he invaded Poland, setting off WW2). But, your mileage may vary.
As for Mein Kampf, we know why it was written, and, yes, it was about PR, but not in the sense that you are implying. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was in jail. He had just attempted - and failed - to sieze power via a coup. Hitler was marginally popular at this point, but during his trial for high treason, he spoke his beliefs out loud and suddenly found huge support. When he was put in jail, he was already a hero - he had no real motivation to lie to convince anyone of anything. He just had to put his beliefs in writing to solidify them as a manifesto of sorts, because he had already won the people over. That's essentially what Mein Kampf is - it's Hitler expounding his views to (what he thinks is an) already receptive audience.
Personally, I'd say Mein Kampf is about the best insight you can get into Hitler's brain. It's directly from his mouth, and its goal is simply to get his beliefs more air time - not to fool anyone (or at least, there's no real reason to presume that). If you can get a hold of Mein Kampf 2 in English, that might be worth a look, too, but it was never finished. It's really hard - if not functionally impossible - to get a clear view of Hitler's state of mind towards the end (of course, maybe that's because his state of mind wasn't particularly clear). | Quote: |
| As for Mein Kampf, we know why it was written, and, yes, it was about PR, but not in the sense that you are implying. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while he was in jail. He had just attempted - and failed - to sieze power via a coup. Hitler was marginally popular at this point, but during his trial for high treason, he spoke his beliefs out loud and suddenly found huge support. When he was put in jail, he was already a hero - he had no real motivation to lie to convince anyone of anything. He just had to put his beliefs in writing to solidify them as a manifesto of sorts, because he had already won the people over. That's essentially what Mein Kampf is - it's Hitler expounding his views to (what he thinks is an) already receptive audience. |
Mein Kampf was a written book it therefore had a specific audience in mind. I don't disagree that it may be one of the best sources out there since his private conversations were unlikely to be recorded first hand, however you should be careful not to assume that Mein Kampf is an exact copy of what Hitler thought. If anything this is what Hitler wanted people to think he thought. | AftershockVibe wrote: |
| Mein Kampf was a written book it therefore had a specific audience in mind. I don't disagree that it may be one of the best sources out there since his private conversations were unlikely to be recorded first hand, however you should be careful not to assume that Mein Kampf is an exact copy of what Hitler thought. If anything this is what Hitler wanted people to think he thought. |
I didn't say it was exactly what he thought. I said it was probably the closest we can get. We already know that it wasn't exactly what he thought because he felt the need to write a follow-up. Nevertheless, there is no real reason to believe that Hitler felt compelled to lie or hide his beliefs, since the specifc audience he was writing to was a sympathetic audience that already largely considered him a hero. All the while that he was dictating Mein Kampf, he was receiving fan mail from people who had already heard him speak his view at his trial and agreed with him.
If you want to assume that Hitler was being deceptive, that's fine, but you'd be doing it without any evidence that that was the case, and without any obvious rational motivation of Hitler to do so. Given that everything in Mein Kampf is in accord with Hitler's actions and speeches before, during and after its writing, it seems to me to be a stretch to assume that it's not largely true. You would be assuming that Hitler managed to convincingly lie to an entire nation for 20 years, maintain behaviour and a public (and, according to most accounts, private) persona that matched that lie flawlessly for all that time, and create policies and make decisions that without the philosophies expounded in that book have no rational basis and were ultimately destructive - basically claiming that Hitler was completely batshit crazy yet at the same time not completely batshit crazy but pretending to be completely batshit crazy with absolutely perfect acting that stood up to two decades of close scrutiny.
Yeah, personally, I think I'm gonna go with the theory that Mein Kampf is what Hitler believed. But, you know, you go with what works for you.Dude, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was merely elaborating on your point. I know you're aware that this might be controversial but don't write me off as a direct opponent!
I didn't say that he was lying, I was merely stating that because he was performing (and Hitler, like all "good" politicians, was a performer) for a given audience his words would reflect that. What he wrote would be what he wanted the world to see him as, he wouldn't include all his little worries, his doubts etc that he thought would make him look weak. Or at least, not unless it would gain him more support by doing so.
| AftershockVibe wrote: |
Dude, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was merely elaborating on your point. I know you're aware that this might be controversial but don't write me off as a direct opponent!
I didn't say that he was lying, I was merely stating that because he was performing (and Hitler, like all "good" politicians, was a performer) for a given audience his words would reflect that. What he wrote would be what he wanted the world to see him as, he wouldn't include all his little worries, his doubts etc that he thought would make him look weak. Or at least, not unless it would gain him more support by doing so. |
I didn't think you were disagreeing, I was just pointing out that the alternative you are describing doesn't stand up to the evidence. As I said, if Hitler really was "performing" while he was drafting Mein Kampf, then it was a performance he maintained almost perfectly for 20-odd years, all the while under close scrutiny - not to mention that such a performance would imply that he had a hidden rational motive for performing, which doesn't make much sense given the irrational way he acted when making critical decisions.
Or to put it another way, assume that Hitler didn't believe some or all of what is in Mein Kampf, and that he drafted it carefully to convince people to follow him. By that theory, Hitler is a cunning and clever person, and obviously fairly rational in order to detect what the people needed to hear and give it to them so perfectly in order to achieve his own goals. It worked (somewhat), so now that Hitler had achieved the goal of fooling the people into following him, what did he do? He did exactly what he said he was going to do in Mein Kampf, right to the end. Now, if Mein Kampf was a lie just to get him power, why would he follow it so well after he got that power, even though it was irrational and eventually self-defeating? That would imply that he wasn't particularly clever or rational - which contradicts the earlier assumption.
See? Doesn't make sense. The logical conclusion is that he did believe what he wrote in Mein Kampf.
Further, as I explained, Mein Kampf wasn't written for the purpose of converting people. Hitler wasn't trying to convince with Mein Kampf, he was trying to explain. He had already convinced. He believed his theories (see the bit above), and he had spoken them aloud, and they had been accepted. So, now all he had to do is write a manifesto. That's essentially what Mein Kampf is. He's not trying to fool anyone. He's just pandering to his audience, preaching to the choir, and proseletysing to the already-converted.*bangs head off table*
I didn't say he didn't believe what he wrote in Mein Kampf. I'm saying it's not the be all and end all of Hitler's beliefs.
| AftershockVibe wrote: |
*bangs head off table*
I didn't say he didn't believe what he wrote in Mein Kampf. I'm saying it's not the be all and end all of Hitler's beliefs. |
Good grief, will you calm down. -_-
I didn't say that it was the "be all and end all of Hitler's beliefs" - in fact, I said it wasn't. I said that it was the best we have, and all evidence suggests that it's pretty damned good. That's it.
Of course you should take what it says with a grain of salt, but that's true for everything. Nevertheless, if you want to completely write off something that Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf - such as the descriptions of his religious beliefs - you're going to need some serious evidence to back that decision up. Unless someone has sufficient evidence to do that, the information in Mein Kampf should be assumed to be pretty accurate.
There are two things to consider when weighing the validity of Mein Kampf.
1.) Did Hitler believe what he was writing was true?
2.) Was it actually in accordance with his beliefs?
The reason you have to consider both is because it is possible for Hitler to sincerely believe he was being honest, but to be completely out of whack with his actual beliefs. Certainly it's not a stretch to argue that Hitler was a whack job and out of touch with reality, so it's possible that he could have been out of touch with his own mind. He may have thought he was fooling everyone but accidently let his real beliefs slip, or more likely thought he was being honest but misrepresented his beliefs.
So to consider the first point, we look at when and how Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, the audience he intended it for, and what he hoped to accomplish with it. When we do that, we note that Hitler was writing to a receptive audience that had already heard him state his beliefs when he thought he had nothing to lose (so he wasn't likely lying then). Thus, it's unlikely Hitler was being deliberately dishonest in Mein Kampf.
To consider the second point, we look at Hitler's actions, before, during and after Mein Kampf, and note any contradictions. Sure, there are a few scattered instances of Hitler's actions contradicting statements or beliefs in Mein Kampf, but by and large over 20 years of close scrutiny he seems to have followed the text to the letter. Thus, it's unlikely that Mein Kampf does not represent Hitler's views.
That's where I'm coming from. Sure, it's possible that Mein Kampf isn't really representative of what Hitler believes, but it's a stretch.I came across this the other day, and I have to say I agree with all of it. Don't know if ye covered this, but it wasn't only Jews that Hitler killed, it was basically anyone who was a threat to society. Anyway heres what I found:
| Quote: |
20 Tell-tale Beliefs of a Nazi (National Socialists)
1. The first duty of the state is to nourish it's own citizens.
2. National Socialists demand an end to illegal immigration and a cap on non-ethnic
minorities entering the nation.
3. All citizens of the nation shall enjoy equal rights and duties!
|