Hitler and the Holocaust

[Tails Turrosaki]

& you'd be wrong tails. We just discussed it here recently.

Orly now?
Then please tell me how I'm wrong...?

[Edwardo Piet]

That is it (de bible) can't be shown to be either way. Which was really my point.

Oh really?

To me your point seems to be that despite it can't be proved to be literally what it says or just metaphorically whatever way you want... so what you do is just interpret it the way you wish so that it's not anti-homosexuality

If it can't be shown either way then why on earth are you interpreting it as not anti-homosexuality! That's not 'either way', that's the way you wish to interpret it! Right?

EvF

[fr0d0]

I interpret it as it is, non committal on the subject. My own position is that homosexuality is natural.

[Tails Turrosaki]

It is natural; it an imbalance of... Pheromones, I think??
You're not really born gay, you're just born with the imbalance. You might like opposite gender, and then switch to the same sex as yours. Some people with imbalances grow up straight anyways, and die straight... You just have to kind of "discover it", I guess you could say. :S

[Edwardo Piet]

I interpret it as it is, non committal on the subject. My own position is that homosexuality is natural.

So because you can't interpret it either way, you posit that it's in-between?

Are you actually commuted to the idea that it is non-committal despite the fact you said it can't be interpreted either way?

If you don't know something is black or white, that doesn't mean it's neither. It might be one but you just don't know it, why believe that it's black white...or neither until you have valid evidence? (To attempt an analogy).

EvF

[fr0d0]

LMAO

Yea... in-between, either way, neither ...you could almost say 'non committal' couldn't you?

OR I could ignore rationality and pick a side.

[Edwardo Piet]

No......... non committal is, in a sense, picking a side. You're saying it positively is non-committal on the matter without evidence that it is.

Okay, for sake of argument at least, let's say we can't say it's positively pro or anti... well what makes you think that we can say it's positively non-committal? It might be committed strongly one way or the other but we haven't been able to correctly deduce which way. So why say non-committal either? Why pick anything?

EvF

[Meatball]

I interpret it as it is.

Quality.

[Minimalist]

I'm stating that Hitler and religion don't have much in common, and often people use Hitler as an excuse. I was not saying he was an Atheist or a Catholic or whatever because that is unknown (I'm not going to be an idiotheist and be all "HE WAS (blah) YOU FUCKTARDS GRARARHAFRGRGA FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUU!!!")
The OP was to pretty much say that you shouldn't really bring up the Holocaust/Hitler in a religious debate; it's a poor example, like Stalin (was it Stalin...?) who just happened to be Atheist and killed a shitload of people. He didn't kill in the name of Atheism, just like Hitler didn't kill in the name of whatever religion he was.

That's all I'm sayin'.

But, what part of this is giving you the most trouble?

Hitler seeking power, wrote in Mein Kampf. "... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."

He may have been a psycho scumbag but everything else he wrote in Mein Kampf he tried to do. Why do you discount this? Surely, you know there are plenty of religious fuckwits throughout history who have used god as a cover for murder?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Tails

Unsurprisingly, the thread title reminded me of this book, which I recommend:

"Hitler And The Holocaust; How And Why The Holocaust Happened" ( Robert S Wistrich,Phoenix Press,2002)


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

If you can be bothered reading that it's also worth reading

"HITLER'S WILLING EXECUTIONERS; Ordinary Germans And The Holocaust" ( Daniel Jonah Goldhagen,Abacus 1996)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Jona...ecutioners

Both books will give you ammunition against Christian apologists.The second especially shows how millions of "good christian Germans " knew about and supported The Holocaust.

Lest we get carried away with moral superiority,it's worth being aware that the allies KNEW ABOUT The Holocaust but choose do nothing. Exactly when,is debatable, but some historians claim Roosevelt knew as early as 1942. PLUS of course NO ONE said a word about the Nuremberg race laws of 1935 which stripped German Jews of their citizenship,making Kristallnacht possible which effectively began The Holocaust in 1938.

The Nuremberg Laws (German: Nürnberger Gesetze) of 1935 were antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany which were introduced at the annual Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg. The laws classified people as German if all four of their grandparents were of "German or kindred blood", while people were classified as Jews if they descended from three or four Jewish grandparents. A person with one or two Jewish grandparents was a Mischling, a crossbreed, of "mixed blood".[1] The Nuremberg Laws deprived Jews of citizenship and prohibited marriage between Jews and other Germans. [2]

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

Kristallnacht (German pronunciation: [kʁɪsˈtalˌnaxt]; literally "Crystal night") or the Night of Broken Glass was an anti-Jewish pogrom in Nazi Germany and Austria on 9 to 10 November 1938. It is also known as Novemberpogrome, Reichskristallnacht, Reichspogromnacht or Pogromnacht in German.[1]

Kristallnacht was triggered by the assassination of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German-born Polish Jew. In a coordinated attack on Jewish people and their property, 99 Jews were murdered and 25,000 to 30,000 were arrested and placed in concentration camps. 267 synagogues were destroyed and thousands of homes and businesses were ransacked. This was done by the Hitler Youth, Gestapo, SS and SA.[2] Kristallnacht also served as a pretext and a means for the wholesale confiscation of firearms from German Jews.[3][quote]

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