Two massive car bombs found in London

[Nashwan]

Middle-class British Muslims attempt to blow up Nightclubs and an Airport in Britain,

British Muslims?

All the suspects identified so far are foreign born and trained, they arrived in Britain in the last few years to work as doctors. None of them have citizenship, afaik.

[AKH]

Counter to Seagoon's impressively lengthy post.

Myth 1: Hitler was not a Christian

The evidence itself destroys any opinions or beliefs about Hitler's alleged apostasy.

The evidence shows that:

    Hitler was born and baptized into Catholicism

    His Jewish antisemitism came from his Christian background.

    His early personal notes shows his interest in religion and Biblical views.

    He believed that the Bible represented the history of mankind.

    His Nazi party platform (their version of a constitution) included a section on Positive Christianity, and he never removed it.

    He confessed his Christianity.

    He tried to establish a united Reich German Church.

    Hitler allowed the destruction of Jewish synagogues and temples, but not Christian churches.

    He encouraged Nazis to worship in Christian churches.

    He spoke of his Christian beliefs in his speeches and proclamations.

    His contemporaries, friends, Protestant ministers and Catholics priests, including the Vatican, thought of Hitler as a Christian.

    The Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler. He died a Catholic.

To ignore the evidence of Hitler's Christianity demonstrates how power of belief can obscure the facts.

Myth 2: Hitler pretended his Christianity only for political purposes

This one represents one of the most persistent constructions about Hitler's Christianity. Revealingly, proponents of this myth never provide evidence for this hypothesis. If he, indeed, pretended himself as a Christian, then on what evidential material does it stand on? If Hitler acted as a pretend Christian, then were does he disown his belief in Christ? Does he write in his private notes that he used religion only for political purposes? Did any of his close associates or friends think so? Where?

Of course Hitler did try to use political force to control Christianity and he tried to establish a unified Reich Christian Church, but this only supports his stand on his view of "positive Christianity" as described in the Nazi party platform (their version of a constitution). And yes, he criticized the Catholic and Protestant hierarchy, but so what? So do Popes and Protestant leaders. Martin Luther himself strongly condemned the Catholic religion and thought of it as the work of the Devil.

I suspect that those who propagate this myth rely on mainly one source: the dubious reliability of Hitler's table talk (a second-hand source that allegedly records the words of Hitler). The table-talk got edited by the anti-Catholic Martin Bormann (Hitler's secretary) and describes political views against the hierarchy of orthodox Christianity (just as Bormann would have liked) but even here, Hitler never speaks against Jesus Christ, but rather in favor of him. (See Hitler's table talk and other extraneous sources).

What obliterates this theory comes from the fact that Hitler continued to express his "positive" Christian views, well after his rise to power. If, indeed, he needed Christianity only for political purposes, then why-oh-why does he continue with the charade after he has established himself as absolute dictator?

But just for the sake of argument, lets pretend that Hitler really did pretend his Christianity; that his sole aim went to politically winning over German Christians so that he could gain their confidence. How in the world does that improve your argument in protecting Christianity from Hitler? If that proved the case, then who should get the blame, Hitler or the gullible Christian German citizens who believed him? And what does that say for the integrity of Christianity if the most Christianized country in the world could not distinguish a member of their own belief system? Think about it. If the most pious Christians and clergymen could not tell if Hitler practiced false or "real" Christianity, then how in the world could anyone tell? I submit that the only way to tell comes from the very words from those who make the claim. Indeed, this constitutes the very flaw of any religion because there never has existed a testable way to determine the truthfulness of a belief in the supernatural. And if you cannot tell by the words of your fellow Christians, then anyone with minimal acting talent can deceive anyone, including monks, bishops, or popes. In fact, monks, bishops and popes themselves, could fall prey to falsehood. I submit to you that a false Christian and a real Christian makes absolutely no difference. Why? Because if I have it right (and I think I do) then Christianity never represented reality, thus an honest believing Christian and a dishonest believing Christian fall on equal turf: they both have it wrong, and they both practice falsehoods!

The only evidence we have, or could ever have, about people who call themselves Christian comes from the very confession of those making the claim. And since Hitler makes his claim to Christianity abundantly and clearly, we can only rely on his claim, regardless of whether he actually believed in Christ or not. False Christianity has as just much validity as any claim to Christianity, even if you could prove dishonesty.

But regardless of how you view a person's claim to their religion, to say Hitler used Christianity only for political forces has absolutely no historical basis to back it up. To simply rely on belief or opinion says absolutely nothing about historical fact.

Myth 3: Hitler got his ideas of Aryan superiority and Jewish hatred from Darwinian evolution

Hitler showed no knowledge of Darwinian evolution or natural selection. Nowhere in Mein Kampf does he mention Darwin, natural-selection or even the word "evolution" (in the context of natural selection).

As for Aryan superiority and his Jewish hatred, Hitler clearly describes in Mein Kampf how he slowly began to change his mind about the Jews from the influence of the anti-Semitic movement of the Christian Social Party. His views with regard to anti-Semitism he said, "succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all." (read volume 1, chapter 2). Nowhere does he explain his anti-Jewish beliefs in Darwinian terms.

In his private notes, where he describes the Bible as a "Monumental History of Mankind," Hitler outlines his views of the Aryan and the Jew, all in the context of Bible reasoning, never in the context of Darwinian natural selection.

Moreover, Hitler viewed progeny, not in regards to evolution but in terms of blood lines (a Biblical view). He peppered his writings and speeches with "blood" words. Examples in Mein Kampf include:

"One blood demands one Reich."

"Bavarian by blood, technically Austrian, lived my parents..."

...the German in Austria had really been of the best blood..."

"...the weakness of leadership will not cause a hibernation of the state, but an awakening of all the individual instincts which are present in the blood..."

Clearly, Hitler had no scientific sophistication or an understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution and his "blood-line" explanation of human "progress" reveals a Biblical view, not a Darwinian view. He did, however, at times express ideas, not from Darwin, but rather from Herbert Spencer's concept of Social Darwinism, which has little to do with natural selection and served as an adjunct to his already established religious views. Spencer's Social Darwinism tried to connect Darwin's biological theory with the field of social relations. The result of Social Darwinism resulted in many eugenics programs that began in America and adopted by the Nazis. [Note that Darwin never expressed the idea that natural selection could extend from biological systems to social systems.]

Hitler best sums up his belief of Aryan superiority and his stand against the Jews with his declaration in Mein Kampf:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

[AKH]

Myth 4: Hitler followed Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy

If Hitler followed Nietzschian philosophy or even admired his work, then where does he describe him or his philosophy?

Nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler even mention Nietzsche, or Nietzchian terms such as superman (uberman), or super race. Of course Hitler did think the Aryan's represented a superior race to the Jews, but never in Nietzchian terms.

Note that Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau invented the theory of the superior Aryan race in the 1800s in his book, An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. Gobineau believed that racial mixture would bring about the decline of "superior" peoples. Gobineau influenced Richard Wagner (beloved by Hitler), and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (whom Hitler read and met), both of who influenced early National Socialism (and both mentioned in Mein Kampf). Popular in Germany in the 1900s, many Germans accepted Gobineau's ideas and, no doubt, influenced Hitler either directly or indirectly. Moreover, Hitler's "superior" race ideas sound like a combination of Biblical race laws and Gobineau's Aryan race ideas, but not at all like Nietzsche.

Nor does it make sense that the Christian Hitler would admire an atheistic Nietzsche. Hitler loathed atheism. In his writings and speeches, he admonished atheists. For example:

    We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith.
    We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement,
    and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

    -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Perhaps the most notorious misrepresentation of connecting Hitler and Nietzsche came from a photo-op of Hitler visiting the Nietzsche archive. Many have incorrectly believed that Hitler visited the archive on his own volition. Not so. The photo-op idea came from Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth Förster, a wealthy Nazi supporter, who established the Nietzsche Archive in 1933, It was she who invited Hitler (after much persuasion) to visit the archive for publicity purposes. Hitler visited the archive exactly once and only for political purposes to appease Nietzsche's anti-Semite sister. The event appeared in the German newspapers and William Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) briefly mentioned the event as if Hitler often visited the archive because he admired Nietzsche. Shirer probably got his information from the German news article rather than from the facts of the event. (Note, scholars have criticized Shirer for his lack of scholarship and poor source material.) Elisabeth Förster also misrepresented Nietzsche by making her brother look like an anti-Semite and a proto-Nazi (Nietzsche's philosophy had little resemblance to the National Socialist German Workers' Party). Unfortunately many Germans fell for the Nietzsche-Nazi connection including many members of the Thule society.

The pre-Nazi Thule society began in the early 1900s. Rudolf von Serbottendorff became the driving force of this order which practiced occultism and an admiration of Nietzsche. Many members of the Thule society later became Nazis and did influence Nazi literature. However, Hitler never showed any interest in the Thule cult or in its pagan practices.

Anyone who uses such material to justify a Hitler-Nietzsche link simply lacks historical depth (laziness of research) and has no understanding of Hitler.

Let's face it; Hitler showed no philosophical sophistication. If any philosopher had an influence on him, it probably came from Schopenhuer (which he does briefly mention in Mein Kampf). Hans Frank, Hitler's personal lawyer, recalled that Hitler carried a copy of Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation with him throughout World War I, but Hitler never revealed any appreciation of Friedrich Nietzsche or his philosophy.

[AKIron]

Argh, too much text H. I like to read but not about Hitler's supposed Christianity. The proof is in the pudding, or the fruit, depending on your millennium. Will you at least accept from me (and probably Seagoon) that Hitler is not a good example of a Christian?

[AKH]

Agreed, Hitler was an outstanding example of a self-delusional hypocrite.  I'd tar anyone who attempts to ferment hate with the same brush.

People really should practice what they preach, or profess to.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by AKH
Agreed, Hitler was an outstanding example of a self-delusional hypocrite.  I'd tar anyone who attempts to ferment hate with the same brush.

People really should practice what they preach, or profess to.

Profess to preach? Is that the antithesis of an oxymoron?


I did warn you about the margaritas.

[AKH]

Er, no

I think.

[Hap]

I take it things have gotten wierd?

[Seagoon]

Dear Hoopy,

I want to be as patient as I can, but I have two sermons, a kid's catechism class, a bible study and a number of pastoral emails to guys in Afghanistan, and other replies to write this week (and I'm losing a work day to the holiday), and consequently I'm not sure I have the time to go round in circles with clip and pastes from internet atheists ("Hitler Myths" from http://www.nobeliefs.com for instance) or even what the point of that would be. I realize I'm being a wimp about that, but I'm pooped and I'd like to spend some time with my family as well (including my parents, who are in town). As far as I can see no dialogue is going on, and there doesn't seem to be any real desire to deal with the question of Britain's future, militant Islam, or for that matter anything to do with any ideology other than the religion atheists most love to hate. And there, all it seems to be is yet another series of point scoring exercises.

Anyway, my conclusions regarding Hitler and his relationship to the German church are not based on a few webpages, they are based on reading the history of National Socialism in Germany and a decent working knowledge of the history and theology of Christianity in Germany during the 19th and 20th century. I purposely framed a response in philosophical historical terms, because a reply based on the fact that Hitler was obviously not regenerate, nor a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, nor a keeper of his commandments would be too esoteric and difficult for non-believers to accept or understand.  Certainly what Christ said of the Saducees was doubly true of  the Nazis: "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? Which is also why many of the Germans who did know both, ended up in concentration camps.

Regarding Luther, yes of course he was a Christian, but also a sinner and a deeply flawed man. While I love and am inspired by many of his sermons and his commentary on Galatians in particular, I am also aware of and saddened by his anti-semitic comments, and could probably point you to a few other gaffes on his part  that the internet miners haven't yet found. I also disagree with his and some of the other Reformers Constantinian views of Church/State relations. I personally believe along with countless other Christians in the doctrine of the spirituality of the church, and with Jesus believe that Caesar's kingdom and Christ's are separate spheres. Nevertheless, not even Luther came close to Muhammad's single world-wide one human ruler theocracy (the Caliphate) nor did he endorse and teach a systematic program of conversion by the sword.

Regarding your request for a bullet point list of central or fundamental Christian beliefs, mine would be slightly larger than Irons:

* The Bible is the written word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and without error in the original manuscripts. The Bible is the revelation of God’s truth and is infallible and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice.
* There is one God, who exists eternally in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
* All men are sinners and totally unable to save themselves from God’s displeasure, except by His mercy.
* Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, who through His perfect life and sacrificial death atoned for the sins of all who will trust in Him, for salvation.
* The Holy Spirit regenerates and indwells God’s people and gives them the strength and wisdom to Love and trust Christ and follow Him.
* Believers in Jesus Christ are united to Christ and Justified by Faith. Justification is an act of God's free grace not the result of our works, wherein He pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.
* Good works, done out of Love to Christ and in obedience to his commandments are the evidences of a true and lively faith, and they will be manifested by all true believers. By these good works believers "manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, love their fellow men, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto."
* Jesus will return, bodily and visibly, to judge all mankind and to receive His people to Himself.
* Man's Chief End in Life should be to glorify God and Enjoy Him Forever.

Anyway, Hoopy, even if I were to spend from now till the second coming answering jabs at Christianity or debating Dowding's hypothetical Imam. Even  if I lost that and every debate we held, it still wouldn't change the situation one iota. Your problem still wouldn't be terrorist attacks by evangelicals, and your future wouldn't suddenly not involve an Islamic majority and very likely life under Sharia, neither would it make Christianity violent or Islam peaceful. If you ever want to discuss the real issues, I'm more than willing to do so. Till then pax and godspeed.

- SEAGOON

[AKH]

I pulled some history books from the bookshelf, and yes, Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity gives an accurate account of what actually happened, unlike "Hitler Myths," which appears to be pure poppycock.  My mistake, for which I apologise.

As you no doubt realised, Martin Luther still made the point that I was trying to make - hate and violence are at odds with the teachings of Jesus, yet some Christians have little trouble advocating their use.  That is when Christianity has the potential to be just as bad as Islamic fundamentalism.

You'll notice that I don't generalise it to Islam as you do.  Why not, well, unlike you, I live in a city where 4.6% of the population are Muslim.  I deal with these people on a day to day basis, I even have Muslim friends.  And you know what, the vast majority of those people are just like you and me -  they have absolutely no desire to engage in conversion by the sword.

As to our Islamist terrorist problem.  Again, this is a matter of history.  When did our problems start?  Well, shortly after we joined with the US in fighting the "War on Terror."  Of course, the whole thing got a lot worse after we invaded Iraq.  So, when I point the finger of blame, I do so in the direction of Tony Blair and the Labour government of the time, since no invasion would have meant no problem for us.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Propane is not necessarily the ideal explosive either. But you can sure as Hell put enough tanks off of back yard grills in a van to make a pretty big bang.  

Propane is a compressed, flammable, and a VERY EFFECTIVE propellant.   It will produce around 2,500 BTU's of energy (or 778—782 ft·lb of force PER BTU) when used as a combustible.    As you can see even a 20lb patio grill tank, or a 40 lb hi-lo tank will not be fun to be within moderate proximity of.  

I deal with Compressed Gases daily at work.   A huge tragedy was avoided.

Furry, Dowding, and the rest of the Brits on this Forum.   We all have our debates over Guns (fan favorite) and other things we don not see eye-to-eye on.   But, this isn't a time for jokes, you have been targeted twice within a week.   I applaud the efforts of the Bobbies, and New Scotland Yard.    May this madness end soon.   <>

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by storch
sounds sort of like dearborn michigan

When's the last time you were there?   I live 7 minutes from it.    What you fail to realize is most here, left that region for a reason.

[Hortlund]

1) The question "was Hitler a Christian" has got nothing to do with the nazism - islam analogy.

2) Hitler was not a Christian.

3) Martin Luther was a Christian.

4) Hate and violence ARE directly at odds with the teachings of Christ. Whats your point?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Originally posted by Hortlund
1) The question "was Hitler a Christian" has got nothing to do with the nazism - islam analogy.

2) Hitler was not a Christian.

3) Martin Luther was a Christian.

4) Hate and violence ARE directly at odds with the teachings of Christ. Whats your point?

According to Islamists hate and violence are directly at odds with Islam too, so what's your point?

Oh yeah, the Spanish inquisition never happened. Our christian hands are clean.

The problem with these poor things is that they're 400 years retarded, repeating the christians mistakes at 2000 friggen o 7. Why don't we just announce anti-Jihad and start segregating the fediddleers.

Oh yeah, that wouldn't be PC..

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
According to Islamists hate and violence are directly at odds with Islam too, so what's your point?

Oh yeah, the Spanish inquisition never happened. Our christian hands are clean.

 

You need to read up on what Islam says about violence...FFS seagoon even posted about it in this very thread.

The Spanish inquisition sure happened...400 years ago was it? Is that the best you can do? Slavery was legal 200 years ago in the US, does that mean that we should accept slavery in other parts of the world now? Your logic is so full of holes its not even fun.