Re: Hitler-Nazi's were staunchly anti-Christianity

On Apr 14, 4:49 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:35e5d039-93e1-44c7-8580-2da6c6f7e5b8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Apr 13, 4:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]

Very soon I will add further evidence showing that when the Nazis
referred to "God" they defined the pronoun to mean the laws and forces
of nature, and not a supernatural Being, thus exposing the beliefs of
Atheists and evolutionists who say the Nazi belt buckle is evidence of
genuine religious intent to actually be naive literalism or
predictable slander of their enemy.

I would not claim that Nazis were *genuinely* religious.

Then that makes you unlike most Atheist evolutionists.

Few, if any atheists, or "evolutionists" would claim that the Nazis were
genuinely religious SNIP....


Just upthread we have a vile Atheist evolutionist in action:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0746f1b645be2b52

A. Clausen writes:

"I have said things like this repeatedly, Ray, simply because whatever
the religious beliefs of the Nazi leadership (specifically the likes
of Hitler and Goebbels, who were chiefly responsible for the ideology)
is completely irrelevant. Germany and the occupied and allied
countries in Europe were overwhelmingly Christian. It was Christians
installing and maintaining the gas chambers, it was Christians keeping
the railways sending Jews to the camps, it was Christians in the
German bureaucracy managing the Holocaust, it was Christians guarding
the camps, it was Christians who took the seized property of the Jews,
and it was Christians that had spent the better part of two thousand
years preaching fear and hatred of Jews, culminating in the
Holocaust." END QUOTE.

This is why I have posted scholarship (in this thread) showing this
degree of misrepresentation to be without any factual foundation. Of
course A.C. has no choice but to ignore this body of evidence because
he has already spoken up and has not the integrity to admit he is
wrong. The Nazis were as fanatically anti-Christianity as Bolshevism.
But this is what denialists do: ignore evidence. I might add that A.C.
represents the ordinary Atheist evolutionist who only cares about
slandering his enemy: the Bible and Christianity. When we remember
that he is an Atheist evolutionist and when we remember the facts
produced by scholarship, which say the Nazis were not Christians, but
by logical deduction they were Atheists, his lies are instantly
explained.

**********
A reminder:

A. Desmond & J. Moore: "Darwin: The Life of a Tormented
Evolutionist" (1991).

"'Social Darwinism' is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly
concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event,
tarnishing Darwin's image. But his notebooks make plain that
competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual
inequality were written into the equation from the start - Darwinism
was invented to explain human society" (page 10).

Both scholars are evolutionists and there is no reason to believe that
they are not Atheists as well.

My claim that scholarship and beliefs of ordinary evolutionists,
almost always contradict, is seen again. The mark of a real scholar is
communication of truth that is perceived to hurt their personal
position and worldview.

***********
Short repost of Nazis rejecting Christianity:


"Hitler 1936 - 1945: Nemesis" by Ian Kershaw (2000).

"Hitler's impatience with the Churches prompted frequent outbursts of
hostility. In early 1937, he was declaring that 'Christianity was ripe
for destruction'....and that the Churches must yield to the primacy
of
the state, railing against any compromise with 'the most horrible
institution imaginable'" (page 40).

**********

"The Third Reich" by Michael Burleigh (2000).

"Nazi assaults on the clergy and Christianity were so crude - up to
and including smearing excrement on altars and Chuch doors...." (page
261).

**********

"The Third Reich In Power" (2005) by Professor of Modern History at
Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.

"A more consistently paganist figure in the Nazi elite was the Party's
agricultural expert Richard Walther Darre, whose ideology of 'blood
and soil' made such a powerful impression on Heinrich
Himmler....Himmler in his turn abandoned his early Christian faith
under Darre's influence. In Himmler's plans for the SS after
1933....As an SS plan put it in 1937: 'We live in the age of the final
confrontation with Christianity. It is part of the mission of the SS
to give the German people over the next fifty years the non-Christian
ideological foundations for a way of life appropriate to their own
character.'....The families of SS men were ordered by Himmler not to
celebrate Christmas.... Christianity, Himmler was to declare on 9 June
1942, was 'the greatest of plagues'" (Pages 251-52).

Martin Bormann is described as "the energetic and strongly anti-
Christian head of Rudolf Hess's office."

"....the Nazi Party was on the way to severing all its ties with
organized Christianity by the end of the 1930s" (pages 252-53).

If not ignorant, A.C. must then be motivated by hate.









I would also
not claim that Nazis were Darwinists. Eugenicists, yes. But eugenics
is predicated on the belief that natural selection no longer is
sufficient or working in human 'civilized' societies. Social
darwinists, yes. But social darwinism (a misnomer if there ever was
one) is also predicated on the belief that civilized behavior toward
the less fortunate weakens the species.

**********************************************

That, BTW, is a common
*creationist* idea, that we were 'created' perfect and have been
degenerating ever since.

Inaccurate.

How so?    Many creationists do claim [that] humans were created "perfect".
You, yourself have claimed that humans were created "ultraintelligent".



The Bible claims multiple progressions-digressions.

Where, exactly?   Chapter and verse, please.


Steven J already provided a correction that I now accept. Instead of
digression I meant regression. The latter is seen in the fact that
Adam was created full grown and ultra-intelligent, conversing with
Intelligence and classifying animals by name. Cain is said not to have
built a mud hut or cave like structure, but a city. After the Fall,
adamkind, now being separated from the source of life (= God) *began*
to regress. We know the builders of the Great Pyramid knew the shape
of the Earth and its EXACT dimensions to the very inch. This
regression appears to have bottomed out in the Dark Ages or Medieval
times. Contrary to a ton of misinformation seen on the Internet (and
publications) which denies Europeans in general to have accepted a
flat Earth, it was accepted. From the Dark Ages forward adamkind began
to progress (long "o"). We are now approaching the intelligence of the
original adamites (also known as Atlanteans). I believe Neanderthal
Man, found in a valley named after a Creationist, represent Atlanteans
with their larger than ours cranial size. This fossil evidence alone
shows regression.

Currently mankind
is in progression approaching  the level of knowledge of original
Adamites.

There's no evidence that humans today are any more, or less intelligent than
ancient humans.   There were no "original adamites".


Required nonsense protecting evolution from being falsified.

The Great Pyramid itself (physical evidence) proves that evolutionists
are liars or horribly deluded. It is impossible for men prior to 2700
BC to cut, lift and cement into place blocks weighing up to 70 tons
each, 30 stories in the air. The construction of the GP shows that the
heaviest blocks are found near the top of the monument and the lighter
are at the bottom. Why not the reverse? What does this type of design
indicate? This is one reason why the GP is called a World Wonder. Men
were smarter back then. Smarter and more advanced than we are today.

When we look at the Sphinx Complex we see 200 ton blocks. Nobody has
ever suggested a believable scenario as to how these blocks were set
in place. And the best scholarship places the construction of the
Sphinx well into the Stone Age. Of course the Sphinx and the GP refute
the existence of a Stone Age and confirm Genesis special creation of
Adam.

snip

The Nazi Party, like the Communist Party, was a totalitarian party
that opposed *any* other source of power, be that Church or science
that they thought was contrary to their goals.

Agreed.

Which doesn't mean that the Nazis didn't use religious beliefs to their own
ends.....



But the Nazi Party based their actions on science. In the 1930s and
40s Darwinism was the reemerging and reigning scientific viewpoint.

So was heliocentrism, and gravity.    They didn't base their actions on any
real science, but on pseudoscientific garbage.


That is why we say Darwin instigated Hitler.


This verdict, from scholarship, has already been posted.

SNIP....The fact is that the Nazis were no more
concerned with real scientific theories as they were with real religious
intentions.


Agreed.


The verdict
also described this science as not serving God but man.

Ray, no science is devised for the purpose of serving God.   Science
operates without regard to anyone's religious beliefs or preferences.


Prior to 1859 it did.

This
description corresponds perfectly to Darwinism as the same denies that
Divine power is responsible for the existence of living things.

Ray, as explained many times, "Darwinism" does not deny that divine power is
responsible for anything.    

Ad hoc nonsense.

It is an explanation for the evidence of
natural processes.   If a "Divine Power" chooses to use natural processes,
science can't say anything, for or against that idea.

Darwinism testifies to the falsity of Creationism, which credits God
as Creator and Designer.

Actually, it's the evidence that "testifies to the falsity of Creationism".
Evolution is a scientific explanation, without regard to religious beliefs.
Many people do credit God as creator, and believe he used evolution as his
means of creation.    Creationism is not false becaue it "credits God", but
because it fails to match the evidence.



Remember that they
burned Darwin's and Haeckel's books.

Reference?

Source cite?

Ever notice that when you are asked for a refence, or a "source cite", you
don't provide it?   Like when you were asked to provide any biologists who
agree with your definition of "microevolution"?

Nevertheless:

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm







Probably not sufficiently in
agreement with a certain loutish, loudmouth televangelist (the very
first!, see Carl Sagan's "Contact") of the Nazi quasi-religious
beliefs. Any resemblance to other loutish loudmouth more recent
televangelists is intentional disrespect on my part.

We do not expect Atheists and evolutionists to recognize the evidence,
but like Holocaust deniers, they will deny the evidence with the same
intelligence insulting lies.

Eugenics is NOT Darwin's idea *because* it is based on the assumption
that natural selection no longer works and must be replaced with
"intelligently designed animal breeding".

Darwin endorsed his cousins eugenics theory and Herbert Spencer as
"our greatest philosopher."

As has been shown already, Darwin did not endorse Galton's eugenics, but a
book he wrote about intelligence.    He did not endorse Spenser's eugenics
beliefs, either.


Peter Quinn said he did.

Leonard Darwin said his Father agreed with
the goals and agenda of eugenics which was defined as forced
sterilization.

Leonard is not Charles.   This is "guilt by association".


The evidence provided by Leonard says he did. We have to bow to the
evidence available, and Darwin's own son is a quality source.


This evidence was already posted.

And already fully refuted.    Strange you have ignored that.


False.

It has been ignored and misrepresented. Since it came from persons who
accept evolution you have no case.

snip what else has been ignored.

DJT- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ray


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hitler-Nazis were staunchly anti-Christianity
    ... installing and maintaining the gas chambers, it was Christians keeping ... orders of the Nazis, most often willingly, and enthusiasticaly were ... Nazis were not Christians, but Atheists and evolutionists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hitler-Nazis were staunchly anti-Christianity
    ... installing and maintaining the gas chambers, it was Christians keeping ... there's no reason to assume that atheists "deny and reject ... orders of the Nazis, most often willingly, and enthusiasticaly were ... Nazis were not Christians, but Atheists and evolutionists. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hitler-Nazis were staunchly anti-Christianity
    ... Christians, or at least considered themselves such. ... Nazis did, by and large, consider themselves Christian. ... clearly trying to associate Christian *beliefs* as the primary, ... Germans did not, and some did not hold such a basic hatred as to have ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Concentration Camps & Extermination
    ... Some wag said Christians are planning concentration camps for atheists ... because they are evolutionists and the Christians accept atheist's own ... The Nazis were Christian, idiot. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hitler-Nazis were staunchly anti-Christianity
    ... Few, if any atheists, or "evolutionists" would claim that the Nazis were ... installing and maintaining the gas chambers, it was Christians keeping ... Like you ignore the evidence for evolution. ... Well, first of all, I doubt that Aaron represents all atheists (I don't even ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading