Why believe the bible?

[Minimalist]

Dripshit has always been crazy as a shit house rat.  Glad you are all starting to realize it, too.

Meanwhile, this will piss him off to no end and all the other god buggerers we have around here.  Fuck them.  I don't care.






It's well worth the 50 minutes to see what real scholarship has to say.

[Minimalist]

[The Valkyrie]

Well, he WAS a drunk...

[Minimalist]

And very old.... the hearing starts to go.

[Amarok]

Yeah because the right never attacked Obama supporters or threatened his life .And Dirch's side are default the nasty people that's why they are like Dirch .

---

I love the fact when the right say something  awful stuff it Free speech .When the left do it it's pure evil .

[Minimalist]

The fascists are full of shit.

[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)

: here is Actual nazi propaganda that is the beginning of the seperation of the Church and the nazi governmental church
http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/rim5.htm

As long as the Roman Catholic Church stays within its boundaries, as long as it deals with the religious lives and experiences of its faithful, and as long as it does not interfere in the areas of politics, economics and culture, those areas that the National Socialist government reserves entirely to itself in the interests of the whole of the people, each church and religious group in Germany can conduct its activities unhindered and free of outside influence. ... “The nation is not the highest power, nor may the state be idolized; The highest power for each nation is and remains religion.”

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propag...e/rim5.htm

here is the actual command/order for all senior officials and nazi party leaders to LEAVE the church and force compliance to the german state 'church' (where hitler is the savior)
http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/koehler.htm

This memo seems rather clear in its intent, and doesn't really support either of your inferences.

because you are trolling again and of course the passages no longer show what I claimed you have cherry picked in such a way so they no longer read correctly.

This is the beginning of the expulsion of forgein christian religions as called for by rosenberg in the lat line of Hitler's plan for the religion of Germany.

Even if true, that

doesn't imply the conclusions you've drawn here.  I see no proverbial smoking gun in any of this.

then you are intentionally being obtuse. I gave you access to the intion of the nazi party mid war, and then gave you access to the actual actual command that demands all senior officials break from the church and align themselves with the state, just like the plan said for hitler to become the head of the church.

Based on the information you've presented, I'd have to rate your claim that Hitler demanded to be worshiped as God as false,

because you lack the fundamental knowledge underscoring the term 'head of the church.' you wrongly sought a definition in nazi propaganda, when you should have turned to "the church" to define your query.

and your contention that this is what he wanted as unsupported.

Who is the head of the church? did I not show the Nazi party exalting hitler to become the head of the church? again not that it happened fully, but to take the title "savior of Germany, to replace the cross, with the swastika, to replace the bible with mein kampf then issuing an order to break from the outside church... If these are not all indicators to you of a man wishing to take the place of God in his people then again you are being intentionally obtuse. No one can look at all this evidence and claim otherwise.. So did you actually read anything I posted or did you just skim through it with your closed mind already made up?

---

 You're conflating inferences you are making from the facts, with the actual facts themselves.  For someone who "always supports his claims with three sources" I'd expect better than this.  So, until you deliver, I'm going to have to conclude that you've failed to adequately support your claims.

You got your three source sweet heart you got a wiki page, a letter from the ministry of propaganda and a letter from koler. again your intentionally ground the facts because you lack the fundamentals to make an accurate assessment of the topic you are pretending to be in a place to judge. and you assume the fault lies with the facts provided. when in truth you do not have the ability to put the fact together with the subject matter you are attempting to dismiss. The fault is not with me nor the fact provided as I only answer the question you ask, but that's the gig isn't it? you intentionally ask 1/2 questions in order to get 1/2 an answer then you fill in with whatever you like.

It's also worth noting that if you're basing this all on Rosenberg, the Wikipedia article you cite states that, "Rosenberg was in the end, a marginalised figure in the Hitler regime."  But if you have some explicit statements from Rosenberg that he intended to elevate Hitler to the station of God, by all means provide them.

like this bullshit.. What a stupid thing to try and trivialize. do you seriously not know any better or is it your hope I don't? every hear the term 'chain of command?" do you know what that means? of course you don't because you tried and dismiss/throw away the testimony/works of an head ranking nazi party official as if it were the works of some second rate news article. You don't get to debate this, because Here's the thing with that sport.. Any historian can tell you that EVEN IF Rosenberg was the laughing stock of the other advisors (to men like grobbles himler and or goering) He was still a figure head to the REST OF THE MF-ing FATHERLAND! So when He writes a a order say to, ranking officers and party officals Then guess what. whether they like the guy or not ALL men who follow under that category must follow the command. They unlike you did not get to judge a man based on what others thought by wars end. All they know is that A higher up made a call like abandon The church and follow Nazi orders, So then all would do so. lest the be subject of interest for the gestapo

I'm so sorry sport but even if the rest of what i said was untrue the argument ended when the nazi party sought elevated hitler to the status of "the head of the church." Jesus/God has that role if hitler sought it case closed. (unfortunately you lacked the fundamentals in basic christianity to see this therefore dragging out your humiliation on the matter)

but, regardless I showed you/quoted you a passage where they did to put hitler in such a position.. case closed.

Just because Hitler was “anti-Christian” doesn't mean he wasn't a Christian. Christians aren't allowed some how to denounce other forms of Christianity? It happens all the time. Some statements of Hilter's can be tied to Christianity...at least his unorthodox version. If this is the case, and Hitler wished to destroy Christian churches as Vox's evidence shows, these acts would be perfectly compatible with the argument that Hitler wished to purge the orthodox version of Christianity to make way for his Aryan version of Christianity. What is the evidence for this? Well, as Wistrich writes about Hitler's hostility to the churches,

"Since 1937, it had seemed to Hitler that the churches were allies of Judaism rather than of National Socialism. They persisted, for example, in treating the Old Testament as a major source of Christian revelation, and they had rejected the cult of the “Aryan” Jesus." (emphasis mine) [2]

There is further evidence of this Aryan version of Christianity in notes taken by one of Hitler's secretaries, Martin Bormann. In his notes he made the following entry,

"Christ was an Aryan. But Paul used his teachings to mobilize the underworld and organize a proto-bolshevism. With its breakdown, the beautiful clarity of the ancient world was lost." [3]

As Richard Carrier argues, Hitler believed in an “odd” form of Christianity and rejected the other forms, believing that Jesus was not a Jew, but a member of the “master race.” According to one of Hitler's secretaries, Henry Picker, “Nazis, believed Jesus was indeed fathered by a Roman legionary (a story that dates back at least to the 2nd century A.D.) and therefore he was a member of the master race.” [4]

http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2011/...ation.html

---

---

Re: animal morality:

In one experiment done with semifree-ranging chimps in Uganda, a chimp struggled to open a door locked by a chain. The researchers wanted to see if a second chimp would release the chain to help the first get food. Three-quarters of the time, the chimps in a position to help did just that. “The crucial thing here is they help without any expectation of being rewarded, because they don't benefit from their helping,” lead researcher Felix Warneken [from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology] explains.

The same pattern showed up in a similar experiment with chimpanzees and humans: When a person with whom they had no prior relationship struggled to reach a stick, the chimps handed it to the person even when it required climbing up to a tall raceway. The chimps helped people just as often as 18-month-old German toddlers did in a similar set up involving a person struggling to reach a pen.

“The main finding is that humans and chimpanzees share altruistic tendencies,” Warneken says. In terms of evolution, he adds, this similarity suggests that the two species' common ancestors has these inclinations before culture developed.

And that tells us something about human nature.”There's a widely held belief that humans are selfish in the beginning and only through socialization do we turn into somewhat altruistic individuals,” Warneken says. This work suggests our nature contains the seeds for both types of behavior.

‭Krakovsky, Marina. “Chimps Show Altruistic Streak.” Discover Magazine January 2008: 63