TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

---

You are building a straw man argument, and a thin one at that, TS.

Come on, show some of that brain you brag about.

Have an honest discussion and stop your dancing around.

---

I don't think I've ever bragged, and I am honest in my discussion. My point: I'm sure you believe the U.S. is a Christian nation, becuase most of the population is Christian, Yet a large segment of the mostly Christian U. S. ignored, embraced, condoned, and/or assisted the institution of slavery for many years. I'm sure you personally believe slavery is wrong, even though neither the Bible nor Jesus teachings condemn slavery. In the same manner, the mostly Christian population of Germany ignored, embraced, condoned, and/or assisted Nazi Fascism. The comparison is analogous with somewhat analogous consequences.

---

You keep asserting a false contention, TS, that Germany and the United States are "Christian' nations, with an obvious smear directed at them for what you imply is a contradiction.

That is arrogance, especially since you have ignored multiple responses regarding those contentions.

Ignoring valid responses makes you dishonest, as well.

Now, if you want a serious discussion, go back please and read what I wrote regarding the minority of people in any nation actually living as disciples of Christ, and apply the implications of that to your contention.

If you want to keep playing with straw men, you'll do it alone.

While a scientist would never agree a female is a male simply because they say so, TS is content to say a person is a Christian simply because they say so.

My owning a microscope doesn't make me a scientist or having a calculator doesn't make me a CPA. TS knows this but it doesn't serve his purposes.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If "scientism" is even a valid concept, Nazis abused the use of science, or falsely claimed their work was science. However, you cannot deny that Germany was nearly 100% Christian. A Christian nation embraced the Nazi ideology. All you need to judge Nazi Germany corrupt by humanistic standards is to apply the definition of humanism. Absolutely, one can prove by the scientific method that millions were harmed by applied Nazi ideology.

---

No doubt millions were harmed by Hitler's brand of humanism, but that wasn't my question. The question is what makes your brand any more authoritative. Maybe it's just a matter of faith to you? That's an acceptable answer.

---

Hitler was as humanist as he was Catholic.

---

According to your interpretation of humanism. We're still trying to sort out whether that interpretation has any particular authority.

As to Hitler and his nominal Catholicism, there's no real issue of fact or interpretation. It just wasn't an influential part of his thinking in any way, shape, or form.

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If "scientism" is even a valid concept, Nazis abused the use of science, or falsely claimed their work was science. However, you cannot deny that Germany was nearly 100% Christian. A Christian nation embraced the Nazi ideology. All you need to judge Nazi Germany corrupt by humanistic standards is to apply the definition of humanism. Absolutely, one can prove by the scientific method that millions were harmed by applied Nazi ideology.

---

No doubt millions were harmed by Hitler's brand of humanism, but that wasn't my question. The question is what makes your brand any more authoritative. Maybe it's just a matter of faith to you? That's an acceptable answer.

---

Hitler was as humanist as he was Catholic.

---

According to your interpretation of humanism. We're still trying to sort out whether that interpretation has any particular authority.

As to Hitler and his nominal Catholicism, there's no real issue of fact or interpretation. It just wasn't an influential part of his thinking in any way, shape, or form.

---

Neither was humanism, and it doesn't take any sorting. Humanism values human life.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

---

You are building a straw man argument, and a thin one at that, TS.

Come on, show some of that brain you brag about.

Have an honest discussion and stop your dancing around.

---

I don't think I've ever bragged, and I am honest in my discussion. My point: I'm sure you believe the U.S. is a Christian nation, becuase most of the population is Christian, Yet a large segment of the mostly Christian U. S. ignored, embraced, condoned, and/or assisted the institution of slavery for many years. I'm sure you personally believe slavery is wrong, even though neither the Bible nor Jesus teachings condemn slavery. In the same manner, the mostly Christian population of Germany ignored, embraced, condoned, and/or assisted Nazi Fascism. The comparison is analogous with somewhat analogous consequences.

---

You keep asserting a false contention, TS, that Germany and the United States are "Christian' nations, with an obvious smear directed at them for what you imply is a contradiction.

That is arrogance, especially since you have ignored multiple responses regarding those contentions.

Ignoring valid responses makes you dishonest, as well.

Now, if you want a serious discussion, go back please and read what I wrote regarding the minority of people in any nation actually living as disciples of Christ, and apply the implications of that to your contention.

If you want to keep playing with straw men, you'll do it alone.

---

I think maybe you are mixing up my responses to Lowry as responses to you. He is the one who agreed that the Nazis defined humanity according to their own cultural interpretation. In response to him, I pointed out that the predominant culture in Germany at the time was Christian. It was that Christian German culture that at a minimum allowed Nazi Fascism to flourish. You can't deny that. It may have flourished in a predominantly humanistic culture, if there were one at the time, but we'll never know. You can't blame Nazi atrocities on science. (You weighed in after my response to Lowry).

TexasScientist said:

---

I pointed out that the predominant culture in Germany at the time was Christian. It was that Christian German culture that at a minimum allowed Nazi Fascism to flourish. You can't deny that. It may have flourished in a predominantly humanistic culture, if there were one at the time, but we'll never know. You can't blame Nazi atrocities on science.

---

I'm not sure if I would go as far as to say that it was the "Christian German culture" that allowed Nazi Fascism to flourish. If one looks at how the Nazis gradually dehumanized certain sects (mentally challenged, the deformed and handicapped, blacks, non-Arians, and the Jews) thru propaganda, one can see how many fell down a slippery-slope of accepting those beliefs.

In actuality, many Germans took risks to hide Jewish neighbors and friends because they didn't believe in the Arian philosophy of the Nazis. I have to believe that they did they because of they Christian culture, not in spite of it.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

---

You are building a straw man argument, and a thin one at that, TS.

Come on, show some of that brain you brag about.

Have an honest discussion and stop your dancing around.

---

I don't think I've ever bragged, and I am honest in my discussion. My point: I'm sure you believe the U.S. is a Christian nation, becuase most of the population is Christian, Yet a large segment of the mostly Christian U. S. ignored, embraced, condoned, and/or assisted the institution of slavery for many years. I'm sure you personally believe slavery is wrong, even though neither the Bible nor Jesus teachings condemn slavery. In the same manner, the mostly Christian population of Germany ignored, embraced, condoned, and/or assisted Nazi Fascism. The comparison is analogous with somewhat analogous consequences.

---

You keep asserting a false contention, TS, that Germany and the United States are "Christian' nations, with an obvious smear directed at them for what you imply is a contradiction.

That is arrogance, especially since you have ignored multiple responses regarding those contentions.

Ignoring valid responses makes you dishonest, as well.

Now, if you want a serious discussion, go back please and read what I wrote regarding the minority of people in any nation actually living as disciples of Christ, and apply the implications of that to your contention.

If you want to keep playing with straw men, you'll do it alone.

---

I think maybe you are mixing up my responses to Lowry as responses to you. He is the one who agreed that the Nazis defined humanity according to their own cultural interpretation. In response to him, I pointed out that the predominant culture in Germany at the time was Christian. It was that Christian German culture that at a minimum allowed Nazi Fascism to flourish. You can't deny that. It may have flourished in a predominantly humanistic culture, if there were one at the time, but we'll never know. You can't blame Nazi atrocities on science. (You weighed in after my response to Lowry).

---

Hitler was an ardent believer in and advocate of Darwin's theory of evolution, which to a great extent
Influenced his racial theories.

TexasScientist said:

---

I think maybe you are mixing up my responses to Lowry as responses to you. He is the one who agreed that the Nazis defined humanity according to their own cultural interpretation. In response to him, I pointed out that the predominant culture in Germany at the time was Christian. It was that Christian German culture that at a minimum allowed Nazi Fascism to flourish. You can't deny that. It may have flourished in a predominantly humanistic culture, if there were one at the time, but we'll never know. You can't blame Nazi atrocities on science. (You weighed in after my response to Lowry).

---

You are continuing a dishonest and dishonorable attempt to impugn entire nations, just to puff up a baseless assertion.

Godwin was talking about you, you putz.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I pointed out that the predominant culture in Germany at the time was Christian. It was that Christian German culture that at a minimum allowed Nazi Fascism to flourish. You can't deny that. It may have flourished in a predominantly humanistic culture, if there were one at the time, but we'll never know. You can't blame Nazi atrocities on science.

---

I'm not sure if I would go as far as to say that it was the "Christian German culture" that allowed Nazi Fascism to flourish. If one looks at how the Nazis gradually dehumanized certain sects (mentally challenged, the deformed and handicapped, blacks, non-Arians, and the Jews) thru propaganda, one can see how many fell down a slippery-slope of accepting those beliefs.

In actuality, many Germans took risks to hide Jewish neighbors and friends because they didn't believe in the Arian philosophy of the Nazis. I have to believe that they did they because of they Christian culture, not in spite of it.

---

I don't disagree. Many did try and rescue friends, neighbors, and all they could. And, as you say it probably was a slippery slope, But ultimately, it was a Christian culture, where not enough poeple stood up against it, and many even supported it. If all of the Christians had revolted, the Nazis would not have been large enough or powerful enough to control Germany.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

I think maybe you are mixing up my responses to Lowry as responses to you. He is the one who agreed that the Nazis defined humanity according to their own cultural interpretation. In response to him, I pointed out that the predominant culture in Germany at the time was Christian. It was that Christian German culture that at a minimum allowed Nazi Fascism to flourish. You can't deny that. It may have flourished in a predominantly humanistic culture, if there were one at the time, but we'll never know. You can't blame Nazi atrocities on science. (You weighed in after my response to Lowry).

---

You are continuing a dishonest and dishonorable attempt to impugn entire nations, just to puff up a baseless assertion.

Godwin was talking about you, you putz.

---

Germany impugned itself. The slaveholding U.S. in the 1700s and 1800s impugned itself. Slavery was defended and condemned from the pulpit. It was mostly Christians that went to war with each other 1861-64. I don't have to impugn them, they did a good job on their own.

TS keeps pretending "christian" means whatever he wants it to mean.

Shades of Alice in Wonderland, and TS playing Humpty to the fall.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS keeps pretending "christian" means whatever he wants it to mean.

Shades of Alice in Wonderland, and TS playing Humpty to the fall.

---

You got Alice in Wonderland exactly backwards. Carroll was a linguist.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS keeps pretending "christian" means whatever he wants it to mean.

Shades of Alice in Wonderland, and TS playing Humpty to the fall.

---

The definition of "Christian" is pretty much all over the place isn't it?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS keeps pretending "christian" means whatever he wants it to mean.

Shades of Alice in Wonderland, and TS playing Humpty to the fall.

---

The definition of "Christian" is pretty much all over the place isn't it?

---

People who call themselves Christian are all over the place in theology and doctrine. Many of them will hear the Lord say "I never knew you."

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS keeps pretending "christian" means whatever he wants it to mean.

Shades of Alice in Wonderland, and TS playing Humpty to the fall.

---

The definition of "Christian" is pretty much all over the place isn't it?

---

Yes and no
1) No Dogmatic Christian are pretty clear that they are Christian but other denomination or non denominational are really iffy. But to dogmatic, rigid Christians it's all real clear.
2). No, we other less dogmatic Christians are pretty loose on definitions.
My definition? Jesus: Do you love?
Me: Yes
Jesus: Feed my sheep. Keep the great commandment - Love God, neighbor and self.
Jesus: Cool! You're a Christian.
Now discipleship? How one lives out that faith? That's needs work too.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS keeps pretending "christian" means whatever he wants it to mean.

Shades of Alice in Wonderland, and TS playing Humpty to the fall.

---

The definition of "Christian" is pretty much all over the place isn't it?

---

People who call themselves Christian are all over the place in theology and doctrine. Many of them will hear the Lord say "I never knew you."

---

So, which so called Christians and which theologies/doctrines, are going to be told "I never knew you?"

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS keeps pretending "christian" means whatever he wants it to mean.

Shades of Alice in Wonderland, and TS playing Humpty to the fall.

---

The definition of "Christian" is pretty much all over the place isn't it?

---

People who call themselves Christian are all over the place in theology and doctrine. Many of them will hear the Lord say "I never knew you."

---

So, which so called Christians and which theologies/doctrines, are going to be told "I never knew you?"

---

"Us".

"Them."

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS keeps pretending "christian" means whatever he wants it to mean.

Shades of Alice in Wonderland, and TS playing Humpty to the fall.

---

The definition of "Christian" is pretty much all over the place isn't it?

---

People who call themselves Christian are all over the place in theology and doctrine. Many of them will hear the Lord say "I never knew you."

---

So, which so called Christians and which theologies/doctrines, are going to be told "I never knew you?"

---

"Us".

"Them."

---

You quoting pogo, again?

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS keeps pretending "christian" means whatever he wants it to mean.

Shades of Alice in Wonderland, and TS playing Humpty to the fall.

---

The definition of "Christian" is pretty much all over the place isn't it?

---

People who call themselves Christian are all over the place in theology and doctrine. Many of them will hear the Lord say "I never knew you."

---

So, which so called Christians and which theologies/doctrines, are going to be told "I never knew you?"

---

Thats not for me to judge. There is a reason why I like Billy Graham's preaching and a reason I don't like Joel Olsteen's "preaching".

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS keeps pretending "christian" means whatever he wants it to mean.

Shades of Alice in Wonderland, and TS playing Humpty to the fall.

---

The definition of "Christian" is pretty much all over the place isn't it?

---

People who call themselves Christian are all over the place in theology and doctrine. Many of them will hear the Lord say "I never knew you."

---

So, which so called Christians and which theologies/doctrines, are going to be told "I never knew you?"

---

Thats not for me to judge. There is a reason why I like Billy Graham's preaching and a reason I don't like Joel Olsteen's "preaching".

---

So you acknowledge there is the possibility that you will be told "I never knew you."

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS keeps pretending "christian" means whatever he wants it to mean.

Shades of Alice in Wonderland, and TS playing Humpty to the fall.

---

The definition of "Christian" is pretty much all over the place isn't it?

---

People who call themselves Christian are all over the place in theology and doctrine. Many of them will hear the Lord say "I never knew you."

---

So, which so called Christians and which theologies/doctrines, are going to be told "I never knew you?"

---

Thats not for me to judge. There is a reason why I like Billy Graham's preaching and a reason I don't like Joel Olsteen's "preaching".

---

So you acknowledge there is the possibility that you will be told "I never knew you."

---

I acknowledge that there are those that call themselves Christian that will be told, "I never knew you."

Based on scripture, my faith and my belief, I want be one of those.

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If "scientism" is even a valid concept, Nazis abused the use of science, or falsely claimed their work was science. However, you cannot deny that Germany was nearly 100% Christian. A Christian nation embraced the Nazi ideology. All you need to judge Nazi Germany corrupt by humanistic standards is to apply the definition of humanism. Absolutely, one can prove by the scientific method that millions were harmed by applied Nazi ideology.

---

No doubt millions were harmed by Hitler's brand of humanism, but that wasn't my question. The question is what makes your brand any more authoritative. Maybe it's just a matter of faith to you? That's an acceptable answer.

---

Hitler was as humanist as he was Catholic.

---

According to your interpretation of humanism. We're still trying to sort out whether that interpretation has any particular authority.

As to Hitler and his nominal Catholicism, there's no real issue of fact or interpretation. It just wasn't an influential part of his thinking in any way, shape, or form.

---

Neither was humanism, and it doesn't take any sorting. Humanism values human life.

---

The most consistent value in humanism is quality of life, not life per se. That's certainly the value expressed in the Humanist Manifesto of 1933. Hitler himself, and German culture in general, were not only humanistic but quite self-consciously so. Aryanism was rooted in idealized classicism and the Renaissance, along with all the scientistic and anti-clerical tropes that TexSci delights in expounding.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

---

Why shouldn't they have?

---

How about it, TexSci?

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

If "scientism" is even a valid concept, Nazis abused the use of science, or falsely claimed their work was science. However, you cannot deny that Germany was nearly 100% Christian. A Christian nation embraced the Nazi ideology. All you need to judge Nazi Germany corrupt by humanistic standards is to apply the definition of humanism. Absolutely, one can prove by the scientific method that millions were harmed by applied Nazi ideology.

---

No doubt millions were harmed by Hitler's brand of humanism, but that wasn't my question. The question is what makes your brand any more authoritative. Maybe it's just a matter of faith to you? That's an acceptable answer.

---

Hitler was as humanist as he was Catholic.

---

According to your interpretation of humanism. We're still trying to sort out whether that interpretation has any particular authority.

As to Hitler and his nominal Catholicism, there's no real issue of fact or interpretation. It just wasn't an influential part of his thinking in any way, shape, or form.

---

Neither was humanism, and it doesn't take any sorting. Humanism values human life.

---

The most consistent value in humanism is quality of life, not life per se. That's certainly the value expressed in the Humanist Manifesto of 1933. Hitler himself, and German culture in general, were not only humanistic but quite self-consciously so. Aryanism was rooted in idealized classicism and the Renaissance, along with all the scientistic and anti-clerical tropes that TexSci delights in expounding.

---

No quantity, no quality.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS keeps pretending "christian" means whatever he wants it to mean.

Shades of Alice in Wonderland, and TS playing Humpty to the fall.

---

You got Alice in Wonderland exactly backwards. Carroll was a linguist.

---

No, I got the context just right. Hey, at least you're not the Hatter.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

---

Why shouldn't they have?

---

How about it, TexSci?

---

That's a really good question. The god of the OT clearly doesn't mind persecuting his "chosen people" to the point of subjecting them to plagues, famine, the pillaging, plundering and raping of conquerors, or even allowing them to do the same to others if it suites his whims. So in that context, "why shouldn't they (German Christians) have" embraced the tenets of Nazism and persecuted and murdered the Jews, who after all crucified Christ?

On the other hand the god of the NT, if that is really the same god as the OT (which I don't necessarily concur) seems to embrace and teach the ancient golden rule philosophy. It would seem that Christians following the NT god, could not in good conscience, and remain true to their beliefs, stand by and permit such atrocities.

This poses a real dilemma for a practicing Christian. I think you clearly see evidence of this dilemma borne out in the relationship of the Catholic Church to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

By humanistic standards, the Christians of Nazi Germany and even Fascist Italy are not without guilt.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

---

Why shouldn't they have?

---

How about it, TexSci?

---

That's a really good question. The god of the OT clearly doesn't mind persecuting his "chosen people" to the point of subjecting them to plagues, famine, the pillaging, plundering and raping of conquerors, or even allowing them to do the same to others if it suites his whims. So in that context, "why shouldn't they (German Christians) have" embraced the tenets of Nazism and persecuted and murdered the Jews, who after all crucified Christ?

On the other hand the god of the NT, if that is really the same god as the OT (which I don't necessarily concur) seems to embrace and teach the ancient golden rule philosophy. It would seem that Christians following the NT god, could not in good conscience, and remain true to their beliefs, stand by and permit such atrocities.

This poses a real dilemma for a practicing Christian. I think you clearly see evidence of this dilemma borne out in the relationship of the Catholic Church to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

By humanistic standards, the Christians of Nazi Germany and even Fascist Italy are not without guilt.

---

How about answering the question?

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

---

Why shouldn't they have?

---

How about it, TexSci?

---

That's a really good question. The god of the OT clearly doesn't mind persecuting his "chosen people" to the point of subjecting them to plagues, famine, the pillaging, plundering and raping of conquerors, or even allowing them to do the same to others if it suites his whims. So in that context, "why shouldn't they (German Christians) have" embraced the tenets of Nazism and persecuted and murdered the Jews, who after all crucified Christ?

On the other hand the god of the NT, if that is really the same god as the OT (which I don't necessarily concur) seems to embrace and teach the ancient golden rule philosophy. It would seem that Christians following the NT god, could not in good conscience, and remain true to their beliefs, stand by and permit such atrocities.

This poses a real dilemma for a practicing Christian. I think you clearly see evidence of this dilemma borne out in the relationship of the Catholic Church to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

By humanistic standards, the Christians of Nazi Germany and even Fascist Italy are not without guilt.

---

How about answering the question?

---

I did. Last sentence of reply - humanistic standards.

It's a common but unfortunate mistake to contrast God as described in the OT as different from God in the NT. There are some sources which discuss this mistake better than I can, so I will note some of them here with a recommendation that you consider them:

Old Testament God vs. a New Testament God?
https://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/old_testament_god_vs._a_new_testament_god

Discusses verse from Old and New Testaments which show consistent character for God

Not Just a New Testament God
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/february-web-only/exorcising-marcions-ghost.html

Puts references to God in the context of the lessons taught

Old Testament vs New Testament: Same God?
https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/god-old-testament-same-god-new-testament-0

Explores verses in each part which reach to the other testament

Also:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/d-a-carson-how-can-we-reconcile-the-old-testament-god-and-the-new-testament-god/

https://www.compellingtruth.org/God-different-OT-NT.html

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/15590/hermeneutically-how-do-we-reconcile-jesus-teaching-on-loving-our-enemies-and-y





There are a number of good sources, but for me it's also vital to understand that Jesus Christ is the apex, and His ministry on Earth was, as they say, a game-changer, not only for His time but for all time.


It takes faith to understand that truth, so I am not surprised so many of us find it a difficult road.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

---

Why shouldn't they have?

---

How about it, TexSci?

---

That's a really good question. The god of the OT clearly doesn't mind persecuting his "chosen people" to the point of subjecting them to plagues, famine, the pillaging, plundering and raping of conquerors, or even allowing them to do the same to others if it suites his whims. So in that context, "why shouldn't they (German Christians) have" embraced the tenets of Nazism and persecuted and murdered the Jews, who after all crucified Christ?

On the other hand the god of the NT, if that is really the same god as the OT (which I don't necessarily concur) seems to embrace and teach the ancient golden rule philosophy. It would seem that Christians following the NT god, could not in good conscience, and remain true to their beliefs, stand by and permit such atrocities.

This poses a real dilemma for a practicing Christian. I think you clearly see evidence of this dilemma borne out in the relationship of the Catholic Church to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

By humanistic standards, the Christians of Nazi Germany and even Fascist Italy are not without guilt.

---

How about answering the question?

---

I did. Last sentence of reply - humanistic standards.

---

Ah, okay. It seems we're getting somewhere. The Christians of Germany should have followed "humanistic standards."

Now all you need to do is prove that empirically and I'll have the answer I've been looking for.

God is love. Debate ends.

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

---

Why shouldn't they have?

---

How about it, TexSci?

---

That's a really good question. The god of the OT clearly doesn't mind persecuting his "chosen people" to the point of subjecting them to plagues, famine, the pillaging, plundering and raping of conquerors, or even allowing them to do the same to others if it suites his whims. So in that context, "why shouldn't they (German Christians) have" embraced the tenets of Nazism and persecuted and murdered the Jews, who after all crucified Christ?

On the other hand the god of the NT, if that is really the same god as the OT (which I don't necessarily concur) seems to embrace and teach the ancient golden rule philosophy. It would seem that Christians following the NT god, could not in good conscience, and remain true to their beliefs, stand by and permit such atrocities.

This poses a real dilemma for a practicing Christian. I think you clearly see evidence of this dilemma borne out in the relationship of the Catholic Church to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

By humanistic standards, the Christians of Nazi Germany and even Fascist Italy are not without guilt.

---

How about answering the question?

---

I did. Last sentence of reply - humanistic standards.

---

Ah, okay. It seems we're getting somewhere. The Christians of Germany should have followed "humanistic standards."

Now all you need to do is prove that empirically and I'll have the answer I've been looking for.

---

A posteriori deduction. We know torture, beatings, bullets and poison gas harm people.

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Well, as you say their culture was a Christian culture. I judge their ideology corrupt by humanism standards.

---

More than a little hypocritical to pretend the Nazis were a "Christian culture".

---

1933 German census - 67% Protestant, 33% Catholic.

---

So? "Protestant" can and has described people who were agnostic, even atheist. It's a bit silly to imagine the 1933 census would include entries for, say, Pagans, Druids or Pantheists, even though there were quite a few of those in Hitler's Germany


https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/central-european-history/article/were-the-national-socialists-a-volkisch-party-paganism-christianity-and-the-nazi-christmas/C1CBB1170357D162E61B7764E45F57E9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Society

---

The point is Germany was largely a Christian populace that embraced Nazi rule.

---

Thats like saying Elizabeth Warren is Indian or Rupaul is female. Just because someone mislabeles themselves doesn't make it so.

---

I don't believe 99% of a population the size of Germany in 1933 mislabeled itself. In 1939, after annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia, it was about 54% Protestant and 40% Catholic. BTW 1.5% Atheist.

---

You really are determined to shove a swastika-shaped peg into a cross-shaped hole.

It's not going to work, you'll only look foolish if you keep trying.

Adolf Hitler was both a symptom of mob-supported tyranny, and a one-off. Anyone comparing the little corporal to modern politicians only signals an abysmal lack of context and proportion, and comparing any American politician to Hitler is an obscene exaggeration.

It's popular for idiots to try, I will give you that. Google 'Trump is Hitler', 'Obama is Hitler', or 'Bush is Hitler' and you'll find thousands of hits, especially those easy cheap-shot images where a President is posed well out of context in order to malign him.

"Trump hates the Press, so Trump is just like Hitler"

No wait,

"Obama nationalized Healthcare, so Obama is just like Hitler"

No wait.

"Bush invaded Iraq, so Bush is just like Hitler"

Ad. Nauseum.

If you want to understand why the Nazi label cannot be reasonably stuck onto an American President, look no further than David Duke. There's no question Duke wanted to gain power, and there's no question Duke is a racist.

But Duke never came close to getting elected to Congress, let alone the White House. There is some latent racism we have to deal with it, but overt racism is despised and rejected by pretty much every organized political party in the United States, and has been for more than half a century.

Yes, there are serious issues we need to address, and yes, some candidates are weak in that respect for their qualifications. Some of our leaders have even had weak character relative to our great ones.

But only a dishonest, malignant moron would press the claim that any American President could be compared to the Nazis to any degree, and Hitler is a prime example of the one-in-a-century monster who stands alone in evil and hate. Hitler was not even a German in nationality, and frankly he came to power by subverting the process. It's a weak, stupid lie to pretend Hitler has any connections to Christianity, or that practicing Christians supported him in any way.

---

I haven't compared any U.S. President to Hitler - never made that comment or comparison.

You can't escape the fact that Nazi Germany was largely a Christian populace. How he came to power is irrelevant to this point. At best the populace allowed him to gain power, at worst they embraced him.

---

You're sidestepping the issue. The question is, why shouldn't they have embraced him?

---

Not at all. The question/issue is did a largely Christian nation embrace Nazism. The answer is unequivocally yes. Why and how might be interesting to explore, but that doesn't change the fact that 67 million overwhelmingly Christian Germans allowed/embraced Nazism.

---

Why shouldn't they have?

---

How about it, TexSci?

---

That's a really good question. The god of the OT clearly doesn't mind persecuting his "chosen people" to the point of subjecting them to plagues, famine, the pillaging, plundering and raping of conquerors, or even allowing them to do the same to others if it suites his whims. So in that context, "why shouldn't they (German Christians) have" embraced the tenets of Nazism and persecuted and murdered the Jews, who after all crucified Christ?

On the other hand the god of the NT, if that is really the same god as the OT (which I don't necessarily concur) seems to embrace and teach the ancient golden rule philosophy. It would seem that Christians following the NT god, could not in good conscience, and remain true to their beliefs, stand by and permit such atrocities.

This poses a real dilemma for a practicing Christian. I think you clearly see evidence of this dilemma borne out in the relationship of the Catholic Church to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

By humanistic standards, the Christians of Nazi Germany and even Fascist Italy are not without guilt.

---

How about answering the question?

---

I did. Last sentence of reply - humanistic standards.

---

Ah, okay. It seems we're getting somewhere. The Christians of Germany should have followed "humanistic standards."

Now all you need to do is prove that empirically and I'll have the answer I've been looking for.

---

A posteriori deduction. We know torture, beatings, bullets and poison gas harm people.

---

So what? All for the greater good of Germany, etc.

So says Nazis.

TexasScientist said:

---

So says Nazis.

---

Exactly. And your compelling, science-based rebuttal is...