Why believe the bible?

[Angrboda]

It's not clear that it means what you think it means.  Head of the church, savior of the church, neither of these indicate that Hitler intended to replace God with himself.  These are both expressions which have meanings quite apart from your rather idiomatic references to Christ's role in Christianity.  It's not clear from what you've presented that there ever was going to be a demand to worship Hitler as God.

Basic sunday school Christian teach who the "head of the church is."
The passage does not have to 'spell it word for word as you so often demand." as Church tradition/The bible does this for us.
1 col 117 The Son was there before anything was made.
   And all things continue because of him.
18 He is the head of the body, which is the church.
   He is the beginning of everything else.
And he is the first among all who will be raised from death.[d]
   So in everything he is most important.

19 God was pleased for all of himself to live in the Son.

and again:
22 Wives, be willing to serve your husbands the same as the Lord. 23 A husband is the head of his wife, just as Christ is the head of the church. Christ is the Savior of the church, which is his body. 24 The church serves under Christ, so it is the same with you wives. You should be willing to serve your husbands in everything.

Again Christ is the head of the church even the pope make the point to say Christ is the "invisiable head' at least sharing the title of God with God.

Hitler is clearly seeking to be the Head of the church in this statement and the out lined follow up about replacing religion with something better.

If you don't understand that, then know you should be asking questions establishing basic christianity and not trying to split hairs in nazi propaganda (something meant to deceive)

This is utterly moronic. That "head of the church" can mean what you say doesn't mean that it necessarily does mean that in the context provided.

As to the rest of your idiotic drivel, the propaganda piece does not support your claim, nor does the internal memo.

That you can't tell the difference between an inference and a fact is sad and pathetic, but that appears to be the case.

Apparently whatever it is you huff to give you the inflated sense of ego you have, apparently you've taken a double dose today.

As noted in my original reply, you are forming conclusions not in evidence. The rest is just your usual piss match bullshit.

---

Agreed. I thought he was trolling us with the whole brain as an antennae idea but then he seemed to genuinely believe it in another thread.

transmitter and receiver.. and i conclusively shown that the brain does indeed transmit and receives electrical signals that it then translated into sensor perception.. this is not a Drich thing. this is a science thing. I simply applied this in a way people like you have been authorized to accept yet.

It's literally amazing how you can get the most basic of things so utterly wrong. You are indeed the moron's moron.

Your presumptions were rebutted not once but twice in that thread.