Two possibilities...

[TheRocketSurgeon]

My whole point here is this, Hitler bastardized Christianity and the theory of evolution to gain what he and the leading people in Germany believed, that they were superior and the destruction of the Jews was justified in their deluded bastardization of both. So my original statement is true, without these details. There is an enormous amount of information about how Hitler and his cronies believed incorrectly that the theory of evolution ie. natural selection and Christianity gave him the right to exterminate the Jews.
Now if you are as smart as you say you are I think I've given you enough to at least look into this and I hope you will. I take it very personally when someone says Hitler was a Christian doing what Christians believe is right, when only a few and very few Christians believed that the Jews were bad for mankind before the theory of natural selection. There were more Christians who believed this after the theory of natural selection, wrongly believing, the Bible never calls for such a thing and the NT actually teaches otherwise. So we have supposed Christians and people like Hitler using the theory for their own agenda, falsely using it I might add, so both sides of this Hitler thing should be denouncing Hitler for what he was, an evil murderer finding false excuses to justify his delusion.

GC

(Emphasis mine.)

I agree with you entirely, and yes, I was aware of their misuse of Social Darwinism (which as a concept has a list of errors so long it'd take a whole book to detail them) to justify their position, as well as a complete perversion of Christian doctrine that really had more roots in European Christianity from the Dark Ages up through the Inquisition, when there was an attempt to purge all non-Christians from Europe, Pagan and Jew alike (convert or die, essentially).  It was on this history of libel and slander against Jews, going back centuries, that Hitler built his false edifice. I am grateful that you recognize that none of these concepts actually apply to Darwin, but to people who took Darwin's concept of Natural Selection and ran in absurd directions with it.

Your summary is quite a propos.

---

Addendum: I should add that the reason I said what I said is that we commonly get the false equivalence of Social Darwinism with actual evolutionary biology, from certain Christians here, and I was essentially asking if you were one of those types. I am glad to find you are not.

---

Godschild wrote:
I take it very personally when someone says Hitler was a Christian doing what Christians believe is right, when only a few and very few Christians believed that the Jews were bad for mankind before the theory of natural selection. There were more Christians who believed this after the theory of natural selection, wrongly believing, the Bible never calls for such a thing and the NT actually teaches otherwise. So we have supposed Christians and people like Hitler using the theory for their own agenda, falsely using it I might add, so both sides of this Hitler thing should be denouncing Hitler for what he was, an evil murderer finding false excuses to justify his delusion.

GC

With regard to the part of your quote I bolded, are you serious?!? Have you ever read anything about European history? News flash: Christian anti-Semitism and Christian persecution of Jews was alive and well long before the 19th Century. Long before! Don't lay that shit at Darwin's feet. Hell, to take but one of myriad examples one could mention, Martin Luther was a foaming-at-the-mouth Jew hater of the first order. There are passages in his works that wouldn't have been at all out of place in Mein Kampf.

I take it very personally when someone piously whitewashes history to make his religion look better than it really was. Mass killings, pogroms, forced conversions, theft of property, mob actions (and most of it blessed by the religious leaders of the day) . . . the list goes on and on and lasted for centuries before Charles Darwin was a twinkle in his father's eye. But you think it took the theory of natural selection to bring things to a head? Get real.

I think you're both talking past one another. The Christians didn't have a racial  hatred of Jews, prior to the German blend of Social Darwinism with "race theory", as they called it. They simply wanted everyone in Europe to convert to Christianity or else, and the refusal of the Jews was taken badly, resulting in centuries of attacks and blood libels, etc. It makes no sense for the Christians to have gone to such effort to convert the Jews by force if they hated them for their race.

So I think the point can be made that it took a toxic combination of this anti-Jew animus that had developed as a flavor of German Christianity, over the centuries, with all the blood libel and other slanderous things said about them ("diseased vermin", etc), combined with the idea of a racial identity that needed to be "purified" under Social Darwinism's perverse version of Natural Selection, to make the Nazi ideology that developed out of the German nationalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Crossless2.0]

Godschild wrote:
I take it very personally when someone says Hitler was a Christian doing what Christians believe is right, when only a few and very few Christians believed that the Jews were bad for mankind before the theory of natural selection. There were more Christians who believed this after the theory of natural selection, wrongly believing, the Bible never calls for such a thing and the NT actually teaches otherwise. So we have supposed Christians and people like Hitler using the theory for their own agenda, falsely using it I might add, so both sides of this Hitler thing should be denouncing Hitler for what he was, an evil murderer finding false excuses to justify his delusion.

GC


With regard to the part of your quote I bolded, are you serious?!? Have you ever read anything about European history? News flash: Christian anti-Semitism and Christian persecution of Jews was alive and well long before the 19th Century. Long before! Don't lay that shit at Darwin's feet. Hell, to take but one of myriad examples one could mention, Martin Luther was a foaming-at-the-mouth Jew hater of the first order. There are passages in his works that wouldn't have been at all out of place in Mein Kampf.

I take it very personally when someone piously whitewashes history to make his religion look better than it really was. Mass killings, pogroms, forced conversions, theft of property, mob actions (and most of it blessed by the religious leaders of the day) . . . the list goes on and on and lasted for centuries before Charles Darwin was a twinkle in his father's eye. But you think it took the theory of natural selection to bring things to a head? Get real.

I didn't whitewash anything, you read into my statement what you wanted to see just to extend an argument, what a small childish thing for you to do. I actually eliminated Darwin from Hitler's deluded ideas and brought supposed Christians into the realm of guilt, but only a blind bigoted idiot couldn't see what was written. I'm fully aware of past Christian atrocities as well as the atrocities of atheist and other religious groups, actually the whole of mankind, like the Bible says no one is good not one.

GC

Bullshit. Here's the part of your post where you "brought supposed Christians into the realm of guilt" (whatever that means): 

I'm not going to say that Hitler didn't get some of his ideas from Christians who believed falsely that the Jewish race was a blight on the world, I'm sure he did, these wrong ideas had been going around for a long time, (even some of the early reformers had these ideas), throughout America, Europe, Russia.

So these ideas that "had been going around for a long time" were false ideas? Like the idea that Jews were Christ killers and their descendants shared in that blood guilt? I know it's PC these days for Christians to distance themselves from that point of view, but there were many generations of Christians who took Matthew 27:25 and John's many digs at "The Jews" more seriously than you do. Who are you to say they got it "wrong" or were un-Christian in taking seriously their own scripture?

In my first response to you, I (childish, blind bigot that I am) bolded a claim that you haven't even remotely backed up. A very few Christians prior to the 19th Century believed the Jews were a blight on humanity? Remember that bit? History says otherwise. You claim you are aware of the atrocities committed, but you want to play the No True Scotsman card to absolve your religion of those same atrocities. Those were "mistakes" . . . "misunderstandings". What natural selection provided the real bigots was the veneer of "scientific" respectability, provided they didn't try too hard to actually understand the theory. But the impetus to exclude, marginalize, oppress, and kill Jews was there long before anyone had heard of natural selection, and it was religiously motivated.

On a side note, there are American Christians today who will thump their chests and bray to anyone who will listen about what great friends they are of the Jews generally and Israel in particular. Of course, many of these same "good" Christians are such fans of Israel because they believe prophesies that Israel figures centrally in the Second Coming drama they can't wait to see happen -- the same drama in which all but a relative handful of the Jews are wiped out. With friends like that . . .

I suppose they got it wrong too?

[Angrboda]

The problem with that? The word in which Jesus used to identify 'peter' is not one of authority. Jesus was actually being a little insulting to peter/petros (translated: loose gravel/unsure footing/small stone) when He told Him of the 'rock'/petra in which He would build His church.

Besides all of that, Peter did not start the R/C Church, Peter did not have a big gentile ministry, and nothing ever written places him in Rome. it was Paul who started the church at rome, and nothing else ever written by Peter or Paul hinted at Apostolic powers/Authority being passed down.

Now he finds an argument from silence persuasive!

[ApeNotKillApe]

"I'm not going to say that Hitler didn't get some of his ideas from Christians who believed falsely that the Jewish race was a blight on the world, I'm sure he did, these wrong ideas had been going around for a long time..."

"Where did these ideas rise from, Darwinism."

You have a real talent for decimating your own argument.

[robvalue]

Anyone who tries to use evolution and natural selection as a basis for morality is off their rocker, be they an atheist or a theist of any sort.

I sometimes get the impression that some evolution deniers think that believing in the scientific theory of evolution is the same thing as advocating morality based on that model.

If anyone thinks that, please stop thinking it. It's an insane proposition that in no way follows from simply gathering information about the world.

"I don't like the concept of natural selection" is also not a valid objection to evolution. I don't particularly like it either, it's rather brutal. But facts don't care about your emotional reaction to them.

[Brian37]

Then there is the third option which is the truth. The Hebrew god Yahweh is a stolen name from the Canaanite polytheism from which the Hebrews splintered from.

[Randy Carson]

That's the thing, they didn't. They used the authority of Jesus supposedly passed on to peter and every other 'pope' from Him to the one who decided to wage war against the muslims or jews or whom ever. The problem with that? The word in which Jesus used to identify 'peter' is not one of authority. Jesus was actually being a little insulting to peter/petros (translated: loose gravel/unsure footing/small stone) when He told Him of the 'rock'/petra in which He would build His church.

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

Besides all of that, Peter did not start the R/C Church, Peter did not have a big gentile ministry, and nothing ever written places him in Rome.

and

Peter did not start the Church. Jesus did, and He promised to build His Church (singular, not plural) upon Peter, the rock. Dozens of Protestant and Orthodox scholars have acknowledged that Peter IS the rock.

But yes, Peter was in Rome.

1 Peter 5:13:
She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.

“Babylon” was an early Christian reference for “Rome,” so Sts. Peter and Mark are sending their greetings from Rome.

Second, this is also the testimony of the Church Fathers, who testify that Mark is Peter's disciple and interpreter in Rome. St. Irenaeus, writing c. 180 A.D., says:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Eusebius says the same thing, as does St. Jerome:

Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter wrote a short gospel at the request of the brethren at Rome embodying what he had heard Peter tell. When Peter had heard this, he approved it and published it to the churches to be read by his authority as Clemens in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes and Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, record. Peter also mentions this Mark in his first epistle, figuratively indicating Rome under the name of Babylon "She who is in Babylon elect together with you salutes you and so does Mark my son." So, taking the gospel which he himself composed, he went to Egypt and first preaching Christ at Alexandria he formed a church so admirable in doctrine and continence of living that he constrained all followers of Christ to his example.

It was Paul who started the church at rome,

If you read the Letter to the Romans, you will discover that Paul is writing to a well-established Church...a Church which he has never visited...though he longs to do so on his way to Spain (cf. Rm 15:24). This is why Paul mentions so many people by name...he is establishing his own credentials as an apostle to a church probably founded by believers who were in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and were led by Apollos or possibly Aquila and Priscilla (cf. Rom 16) and saying, "Look, I know many of the same people you do."

and nothing else ever written by Peter or Paul hinted at Apostolic powers/Authority being passed down.

Many people deny that the modern Catholic Church is the one Church Jesus promised to build (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) claiming that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not found in the Bible. Is this argument valid?

Let’s begin by examining the evidence contained in scripture as well as the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians for evidence of Apostolic Succession. The Bible contains clear indications that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

Paul also outlined the beginnings of Church hierarchy (as well as the qualification for Church office) in his first letter to Timothy.

“Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer (bishop) must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

“Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.” (1 Timothy 3:1-10)

These verses illustrate that by the time this letter was written in the late first century, the Church had already established several positions of leadership: Apostles (Peter being the foremost among them), Overseers (or Bishops) and Deacons.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.

While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles to the leaders of the early Church.

[Drich]

The problem with your argument is that there were no other kinds of Christians between the ascension of Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation. Yet (see chart I posted) we see persecution of the Jews going back to practically the beginning of Christianity.

If your time line says Christians were persecuting people as soon as they got organized or shortly their after then it's wrong. In the beginning the Jews persecuted Christians/Christ, otherwise they would not have killed Him or stoned so many believers. then the Romans followed suit for nearly 300 years till Constantine put an end to it in 324 AD when all of roman fell under his authority. Then we lived in relative peace till the fall of the Roman Empire.

You can't ignore ~1500 years of Christian history and say that the Christians acting throughout that time were not following the God of the Bible, that they weren't TrueChristians™.

Oh, but I can.. It's you can't say that just because someone calls themselves a Christian, makes them One. Christ Himself says in Mat 7 that not everyone claiming to know Him will He acknoweledge. He also says 'you will know them by their fruit.' Meaning we will know a Christian by their actions. So we can indeed look at the behavior of those who persecute others and determine if this is a 'Christian/Christ like Behaivor.' Therefore that 'History' can be dismissed as Worship NOT sanctioned by the God of the bible. Because Again nothing in the bible supports that behavior.

Does that mean this is not the history of the christian religion? No. The difference being Christianity is defined by Christ. the christian Religion is defined by man. Being a member of the religion does not in no way make you a Christian by the standard of Christ. How can one say that? Because again, Unlike the no true scots man fallacy their are rules that define a Christian by the standards of Christ in the bible. If one does not follow said rules we are told Christ will not acknoweledge them as 'Christian.'

There is a clear pattern of systematic abuse of Jews until fairly recently in time, based on people's perception of what the Bible demanded of them

If their is 'perception' without a written command in the bible that perception then becomes delusion. For how can one perceive any such thing if we in fact have commands and passages that would have us honor the jews?
(romans 11)

(through their leaders, as happens today with the anti-gay rhetoric, despite being only a few obscure verses, some of which are of questionable value and none of which have anything to do with the teachings of Jesus, who mentions divorce but not gays).

In your opinion, why would Christ need to mention a prohibition of Homosexuality when He explicitly states that all sex outside the confines of a sanctified marriage is a sin? The obvious point being their isn't a context scripturally in the new or old testament in which a homosexual can enter into a sanctified marriage covenant with God, thus making all homosexual activity sinful.

Yours is a argument from silence that wants to be permissive of something the Law and Christ clearly says is not allowed even IF the sin is not identified by name. Even if you can, in your own mind explain away all the different verses that outright says homosexuality is a sin (romans 1 for example) at best all you have done is make the bible silent about that specific topic.

Even so The bible says a lot about sex and the only context in which it is permitted. to which Homosexuality has NEVER been honored by God in such away as to have access to the marriage covenant under His blessing. Which again makes homosexuality a sexual sin, just like all other sexual sin. Meaning it is not an unforgivable sin, nor is it any worse than any other sexual sin. However as far as sin goes sexual sin is all considered to be pretty bad stuff. even so, their is forgiveness available if one turns from wanting this sin in his heart, even if they are a slave to it physically and mentally.

That is the difference between the persecution of a people and the identification and being held accountable to sin. As people we are all the same under God. as a unrepentant sinner we are outside of God's Grace and mercy. To identify sin is to help and restore our brother. If we accept and justify our sin then we will never have any hope of redemption.

You're willing to swallow a weird prejudice based on a few verses and a lot of church culture, but then want to turn around and say "but those verses they used to justify hatred of the Jews for the past 1900 years aren't really proper doctrine, it was just a twisting of false leadership". It's more than a bit strange to me to read such an argument, given that factor.

Again it's Really Really simple. Man's identification of Church in all forms be damned. Just because we say something is for and of God means nothing. Which mean that our religions and religious practices in of themselves have and hold no intrinsic value. It is only through the word of God can we ever truly hope to know who God is and what He wants and expects from us. If what we do is not authorized by God or commanded by God in the bible it means we are working in religion, and not true exegetically sound (God identified and prescribed) worship/Actions then what we 'do' whatever it is will be judged by God/Christ for merit. He does this by looking at several factors, but bottom line if it is not in the Spirit of Christianity or it Goes against key apsects of Exegetically backed doctrine, then it can not be called a "Christian" act. Yes it can be identified as a work of religion or even the 'christian church', but even so is not a God of the bible sponcered or sanctioned action.

(As an aside, I'm curious: if Peter was not really the first Pope, then how did the second one become Pope? I happen to agree with you--though I have no evidence and freely admit that it's just conjecture on my part--that, at some point, somebody in power in the early orthodox church made it up and assigned Peter the role after-the-fact, so they'd have an authoritative lineage traceable to Jesus, but I'm curious to hear your explanation.)

Ironically we only have Catholic church history that tells us this, but the gospel writer Mark was Peter's primary understudy, and the Gospel of Mark is actually Peter's account of the Gospel. That said, Mark after Peter's death went on to Africa and started the church efforts there. He did not head up the whole church. The first few centuries of the church worked far differently, meaning Each church was under the supervision of a given apostle all operated differently. In essence each Church was it's own denomination. Their wasn't one set of rules or one church as with the R/C church. That is why their are so many different letters dealing with so many different topics, and why their is not one centralized set of rules that govern everything.. like a NT version of the 10 commandments. Think about it, coming out of the Age of the Jews the church would have been very easily established if we like the jews were given a central charter and made to follow a given rule set. But, rather we have nearly 2 dozen letters covering a whole range of issues the various first century churches dealt with.

Peter was indeed incharge of a set of churches and we can see his works in the gospel of Mark and the books named after Him, but that's it. Peter and Paul at one time were at odds with one another and this is spelled out in the book of Acts and even in some of Paul's writtings to His churches, where Peter wanted Paul to change some of the things he taught to align with what He (Peter) taught, and Paul keeps on with what He taught. Bottom line Peter did not have the Papal authority that the pope has now. However He was respected and revered by His churches and followers, as was Paul, and were the rest on Equal footing, not one over another. This means the first man with the title Pope in the 6th century was indeed the first pope, and as you said just tied himself to peter, and made a bigger deal about his ties to peter than he should have.

Which in of itself is not an action supported by the bible/God. Look at all the Harm and persecution that came from that one act of selfishness. Perhaps at the time the church because it was initially set off in so many different directions Needed this form of unity to protect itself from a civial war of sorts, or perhaps this is an example of absolute power corrupting absolutely... We are not in a position to judge that man's heart. Only His actions and whether or not they are consistant with Scripture. It is Jesus' job to judge that particular man by looking at all that he did and the reasons why to determine whether or not his action would be deem righteous or sinful.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Wow, Drich. Way to spell out why all the Catholics are frauds. Rather than answering your nonsense (like completely missing my point about picking and choosing focus doctrine, re: divorce v. gayness), I'll just let the Catholics here tear you up on that one.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Wonder where Hitler got that from.

From his own deluded mind, he saw the Germans as a superior race, he was an evolutionist and wanted to push evolution along by getting rid of the Jews and any other race he saw as inferior.

GC

You know when you put it like that it sure sounds as if Hitler got all of his ideas from racist Americans.  They did everything Hitler did before Hitler was a baby.