Inherit the Wind Not Enough
We recently reported on Mohamed Noor’s Introduction to Genetics and Evolution course offered through Coursera, and how the Earl D. McLean Professor and Associate Chair of Biology at Duke University presented both whig history and false science in his attempt to convince students that evolution is true. It was one manipulation and fallacy after another but with the class now wrapped up we now realize we did not know just how far evolutionists would go. Perhaps we still don’t, but we do now know that there apparently is no manipulation of history that is beneath Noor, not even this howler that the evolutionist presented to his class with a straight face: Hitler believed in Intelligent Design. And alongside this gem the students also learned from Noor that Hitler was not influenced by Darwin.Apparently the Inherit the Wind myth, which Noor referenced early in the course, was not enough. It seems evolutionists now need to expand their whiggish story telling about the history of evolutionary thought in order to prop up their scientific story telling about evolutionary theory.
Religion drives science, and it matters.
Apparently, Hitler wrote this in Mein Kampf:
ReplyDelete"It was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will."
The first sentence sounds like something Dr Hunter might tell his Bible college students in one of his ID lectures.
The last sentence might have been screamed, fist shaking and red-faced, by Dr Hunter in one of his anti-abortion tirades. Can you imagine the poor students, shaking in their shoes, ducking behind their desks?
But what exactly did Dr Noor say about Hitler? There are no relevant links or quotes in the OP.
Interesting:
ReplyDelete"I am now as before a Catholic and shall always remain so." - Hitler, 1941, to General G. Engel.
"God's will gave men their form, essence and abilities." - Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol 2 chapter 10.
"I believe today that my conduct in is accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - Hitler, Mein Kampf, p46.
"For eight months we have been waging a heroic battle against the Communist threat to our Volk, the decomposition of our culture, the subversion of our art, and the poisoning of our public morality. We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion." - Hitler in a radio address October 14, 1933.
""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." - Hitler, speech, Berlin, October 1933.
""Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity. Fourteen years they have gone arm in arm with atheism. At no time was greater damage ever done to Christianity than in those years when the Christian parties ruled side by side with those who denied the very existence of God. Germany's entire cultural life was shattered and contaminated in this period. It shall be our task to burn out these manifestations of degeneracy in literature, theater, schools, and the press—that is, in our entire culture—and to eliminate the poison which has been permeating every facet of our lives for these past fourteen years." - Hitler, speech, Stuttgart, Feb 1933.
- Hitler had "God is with us" inscribed on the belt buckles of Nazi uniforms.
- Hitler outlawed the German Freethinkers' League, the largest atheistic association in Germany at the time, and allowed its meeting hall to be converted into a Christian outreach center.
Hmmm, now where are we getting the idea that Hitler was an atheist, again...?
Anyone?
You do realize you have called the curse of BA77 upon yourself, don't you?
DeleteAny second now, thousands of links will smite your post...
Dear Science, SAVE ME!!!
DeleteHitler's Christianity wasn't mine, he even rewrote the Bible to make it friendly to his twisted desires.
Deletehttp://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/aug2006/nazi_bible.html
He wanted to create a super race which is a completely Darwinian idea.
Love your name Wanda,
DeleteDo you have a citation where Darwin advocated killing the Jews ? I got one from Martin Luther.Or was ML a mock Christian as well?
Wanda -
DeleteHitler's Christianity wasn't mine
Quite possibly. But that does not invalidate 'his' Christianity. There are many branches of the church. How is to say which ones are correct and which are wrong?
He wanted to create a super race which is a completely Darwinian idea.
We so often hear ID-ers saying they are not anti-evolution. Many do accept MICRO-evolution. And Eugenics only actually requires MICROevolution to work.
So it is perfectly possible to be both a eugenecist and a believer of ID.
They tell it so well
DeleteThe cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.
Ha ha ha, so he was lying about being wanting to destroy atheism?
ReplyDelete...then proceeded to persecute and destroy anyone who didn't conform to his regime.
Yes, including atheists.
He forced the churches to be under state control and to toe his propaganda.
So what? That doesn't mean he wasn't a Christian. All evidence indicates he believe he was enacting God's will. And he wouldn't tolerate any dissension while he did so.
Truly, the more dangerous are those who would prevert its message and misuse religion for their evil agendas. The proverbial, wolf in sheeps clothing.
This is just the No True Scotsman fallacy. The only thing that defines a Christian is a belief in Yahweh and and acceptance of Jesus Christ as their saviour. That's it. Beyond that there is still a Hell of a lot of wiggle-room for interpretation. Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, Baptists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelicals, Presbyterians, and many, many more all disagree on how precisely to interpret their religion. But that is no justification for any one of them saying "Anyone who doesn't interpret it the same way I do is not a Christian at all."
>"So what? That doesn't mean he wasn't a Christian"<
ReplyDeleteAnd it doesn't mean he was a Christian either.
>"All evidence indicates he believe he was enacting God's will"<
*ALL* evidence? No, I don't think so, there is also evidence he used Darwin's theory. Some evidence pointed out here by Kario starting @ 8> http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/who-said-this/
rjop -
DeleteAnd it doesn't mean he was a Christian either.
But he does repeatedly and emphatically claim to be a Christian and decry atheism in both words and deeds.
*ALL* evidence? No, I don't think so, there is also evidence he used Darwin's theory.
You see, the problem you are having is that you do not understand how someone can be applying an evolutionary principle and still be a Christian.
There are a great many Christians who nonetheless accept ToE. That doesn't make them non-Christians, 'fake Christians', 'Christians in denial', 'an atheist in disguise' or anything for that ridiculous sort.
He was just a Christian. Who also accepted evolution. Like the millions of others who do the same. That doesn't make him an atheist.
Rjop -
DeleteWell said. I absolutely agree.
I think one should be very careful before even thinking to define Hitler a non-mock Christian. Please see here:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge
and in particular here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_brennender_Sorge#Nazi_response
Moreover, I don't believe that anyone could be seriously persuaded that nazi "euthanasia" killings were inspired by christian principles:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html
I think one should be very careful before even thinking to define Hitler a non-mock Christian. Please see here:
DeleteSounds like Hitler was furious with the Church establishment. Not a surprise. Dictators tend to take a vert dim view on anyone who stands up to them.
Moreover, I don't believe that anyone could be seriously persuaded that nazi "euthanasia" killings were inspired by christian principles:
Really? That's odd, because the Bible DOES explicitly approve of genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence#Genocide
So you suggest that Hitler was in opposition to the Church founded by Jesus, and down-to-the marrow a worshipper of the ancient Hebrews' God... as a matter of fact, a crypto-jew. Cute suggestion, indeed.
DeleteShould anyone be interested in a somewhat different interpretation of the controversial passages in the Bible, he could have a look here:
http://christianthinktank.com/qamorite.html
A final observation: please note that the "euthanasia" killings refer to the cold-blooded suppression of the crippled, "mad", disabled people, in view of the arian race improvement...
Michele -
DeleteSo you suggest that Hitler was in opposition to the Church founded by Jesus, and down-to-the marrow a worshipper of the ancient Hebrews' God... as a matter of fact, a crypto-jew. Cute suggestion, indeed.
Nice spin on a strawman argument. You could go far in the ID church.
I am suggesting that Hitler believed in God and Jesus. He claimed to many times. He may also have cracked the whip to get the German church authorities to tow his line - fascist dictators generally did things like that.
Should anyone be interested in a somewhat different interpretation of the controversial passages in the Bible, he could have a look here:
Ha ha ha! Thanks Michele. I always LOVE the hilarious justifications apologists come up with to try to justify genocide. And there were some crackers in there:
"Do we have any precedents, paradigm cases, or similar incidents of such orders/actions to annihilate?"
So, the fact that God has ordered/committed genocide before (Noah's Flodd, Sodom and Gomorrah), that makes it okay? BWAHAHAHAHA!
"So this annihilation was a judgment"
And yet all the Canaanites were killed - including, presumably, pregnant women and babies. What can crimes can babies, new-born and unborn, have committed which merits slaughter?
"These nations show up in archeology [sic] and literature as a uniquely evil and destructive civilization"
That's because you are getting your information of the Bible. Of course the Hebrews are going to horrendously slander their enemies. This is absolutely standard propaganda - the enemy are all wicked and we are righteous warriors. But as historians, we really should view things a little more objectively.
"If the nations of that day could have had a vote on who to 'destroy', they all would have voted for the Canaanite/Amorite culture."
LOL!! Loving that one. Well, as long as the people of the area were given a choice as to WHO should be utterly mercilessly exterminated, then it's perfectly moral.
"the Canaanites could decide to either vacate the premises peacefully or deal with military force"
That is war. And it alone does not justify the genocide of a nation's non-combatants.
God is supposed to be omnipotent. And if he cannot achieve his ends in any better way than genocide, he is not very omnipotent, is he? But if he IS omnipotent, then the only conclusion is that he CHOOSES genocide. Nothing can force the hand of an omnipotent being.
My dear friend, my answer about Hitler's crypto-judaism was clearly ironic: the man could do lip service to whatever religion he found convenient at the moment (including celtic neo-paganism, which he strongly supported among his followers), but this didn't make a Christian of him! Nor the fact that Hitler might declare himself a Christian implies that Jesus somewhat "endorsed" his evil actions...
DeleteAnd, talking about strawmen arguments: why did you refuse to face the question of nazi "euthanasia" killings, I wonder, and turned instead to the (apparently) more comfortable - though a bit threadbare - "problem of evil in the world" (the so-called "theodicy")? Maybe because the former demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that Hitler wasn't, after all, a real Christian? ;)
Anyway, let me say something about theodicy as well (although this isn't exactly the place where to start a theological discussion). Believe me, it could appear to be an insolvable problem, but only at its face value: both protestant and catholic theology has found a way to deal fine with it (I'm not saying that it isn't a tough problem, though... but it is such mainly in the sense that it can be a "stumbling block" to many). However, anyone interested can have a look here to begin with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
Then, if you build your reasoning about God's omniscience and omnipotence on the denial of free will... well, we better stop here our debate!
Anywhere... Accept my best wishes for a very Merry Christmas!
Michele -
DeleteMy dear friend, my answer about Hitler's crypto-judaism was clearly ironic: the man could do lip service to whatever religion he found convenient at the moment ... but this didn't make a Christian of him!
Quite true. But he did repeatedly and publically state his Christian faith and decry atheist. What reason do we have to suppose he was lying?
why did you refuse to face the question of nazi "euthanasia" killings,
I don't always reply to every point - otherwise posts quickly get rather unwieldy.
Maybe because the former demonstrates beyond the shadow of a doubt that Hitler wasn't, after all, a real Christian?
I really don't see how. How are you arriving at this conclusion? Is it impossible for Christians to commit genocide - even though God specifically commands genocide in the Bible? Again, I'm not sure I follow your logic, but I am detecting a whiff of the No True Scotsman fallacy...
Believe me, it could appear to be an insolvable problem, but only at its face value: both protestant and catholic theology has found a way to deal fine with it
Is there a particular form of theodicy you favour? Because they all seem rather flawed to me.
Then, if you build your reasoning about God's omniscience and omnipotence on the denial of free will... well, we better stop here our debate!
I do not deny free will. But I do have problems with the Free Will Defence. It seems to assert that suffering is an inseparable consequence of having free will. But if so, what is the state of being in Heaven? Is there suffering in Heaven? Or is there no free will in Heaven? Or, if there is somehow free will but no suffering, then you have disproved the very premise of the argument - suffering is NOT an inevitable consequence of free will.
Accept my best wishes for a very Merry Christmas!
And the same to you and yours. All the best.
Ritchie, I'm not even debating that Hitler was an atheist or not. From what little I have read of this, he probably had a kind of fuzzy belief in some kind of a creator, but he was very earthly minded. Whatever moved his earthly agenda forward at the moment was what he supported or persecuted.
ReplyDeleteSo, I don't think he was a true atheist, nor a Christian. He had his own cultlike things going on.
Upon attaining office and enjoying a free hand, what line did Hitler take on religion and the Church? Five days after becoming Chancellor in 1933, Hitler allowed a sterilization law to pass, and had the Catholic Youth League disbanded (Shirer, The Rise). The latter was a measure applied to other youth organizations too, in order to free up young people to join the Hitler Youth. At the same time, Hitler also made an agreement with the Vatican to allow the Catholic Church to regulate its own affairs. (It is probably worth noting here the low value that Hitler placed on written agreements.) Parents were pressured to take their children out of religious schools. When the Church organized voluntary out-of-hours religious classes, the Nazi government responded by banning state-employed teachers from taking part. The Crucifix symbol was even at one point banned from classrooms in one particular jurisdiction, Oldenburg, in 1936, but the measure met with fierce public resistance and was rescinded. Hitler remained conscious of the affection for the Church felt in some quarters of Germany, particularly Bavaria. Later on, though, a wartime metal shortage was used as the excuse for melting church bells (Richard Grunberger, The Twelve Year Reich, Henry Holt, Henry Holt, 1979 and Richard Grunberger, A Social History of the Third Reich, Penguin, 1991).
Hitler’s references to providence and God and the ritualistic pageantry of Nazism were more than likely pagan than Christian. Earthly symbols of German valour and Teutonic strength were to be worshipped - not the forgiving, compassionate representative of an “Eastern Mediterranean servant ethic imposed on credulous ancient Germans by force and subterfuge” (the phrase is Burleigh’s own, in Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: a New History, Pan, 2001). A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History) illustrates it:
"We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth. "
http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm
By the way, where did you get your definition of "Christian" from?
Ritchie, I see this often with atheist responses. It is very important when reading the Bible to understand the context of what you are reading. The Bible is divided into two main sections. The Old Testament and The New Testament. These are not simply arbituary names, but very meaningful. Since the death and resurrection of Jesus, God's dealings with all of mankind are based on the New Covenant (testament), not the Old. In other words, the Old is obsolete. Christian teachings are based primarily upon the New Covenant. A good primer would be the Sermon on the mount - Matthew 5-7.
ReplyDeleteReally, the OT is no longer the inspired word of God, are you saying the Truth is subjective depending on the reader? Does that mean Genesis is obsolete? Ten Commandments?
DeleteNeal -
DeleteReally? SO why does Jesus claim categorically NOT to be doing away with the old law?
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17?
I do understand that the New Testament is a VAST improvement on the Old in practically every respect - Jesus teaches fogiveness whereas Yahweh taught slaughter, Jesus says to love our enemies while Yahweh said to smite them down, Jesus taught peace, Yahweh taught war... In fact that are SO different that I find it absolutely shocking that anyone can seriously believe these are the same people.
According to doctrine, Jesus IS Yahweh. How is this to be explained? How did Yahweh, God of war, terrible and wrathful become gentle lamb Jesus, meek and mild? Isn't it blindingly obvious that the New Testament is NOT a continuation of the same being? How could God be so inconsistent? Isn't it obvious that this is just a whole new bunch of stories written by men who just have new ideas about what their God should be like?
>"Isn't it obvious that this is just a whole new bunch of stories written by men who just have new ideas about what their God should be like?"<
DeleteNope, not obvious. It is obvious however, you don't like Christianity. There are many resources to answer your above questions. I would recommend if there is a genuine interest, the book 'Is God a Moral Monster' by Paul Copan as a start.
rjop -
DeleteNope, not obvious. It is obvious however, you don't like Christianity.
I don't have much time for people insisting it is literally true, I admit. But do not dismiss my questions as mere 'hysterical rantings' as though I did not have an actual point.
OT Yahweh and Jesus are as polar opposite in personality and attitude as one could possibly imagine. Yet they are supposed to be the same being. Isn't this absolute 180 flip in character at least a tiny bit suspicious? Or are you so numbed to just absorbing anything your religious text and leaders say without question that you are unable to analyse your doctrines at all?
Ritchie, in Matthew 5:17 Jesus said that he came to FULFILL.
DeleteJesus slso said, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." MT 5:18
Very importantly, it is explained how Jesus accomplished or fulfulled the Old Covenant...
Hebrews 8:7 "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
8For finding fault with them, He says,
“BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD,
WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT
WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
9NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS
ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
10“FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
11“AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN,
AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, ‘KNOW THE LORD,’
FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME,
FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM.
12“FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES,
AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.”
13When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."
Much could be said about the mercy and love of God in the Old Testament and not just judgment. The difference in the New Testament is that Jesus took the judgment of the law upon himself so God was able to extend great mercy and grace to man. This is the age of great mercy and grace. At the end, however, their will be judgment for those that refuse his forgiveness.
A little parable to illustrate...
There was once a young lady who got a speeding ticket. She went to court to ask that the ticket to be taken away. The judge looked at the evidence and refused her request. However, the judge then stepped from his bench, went over to his daughter and pulled out his wallet and gave her the money to pay her ticket. Thus, the judge upheld the law and yet paid the fine his daughter could not afford.
So, there is no inconsistency. There is mercy and judgment in both covenants. It's just that in the New, Jesus had come and paid the price for our wrongdoing and took the judgment upon himself. Those that want great mercy can receive it. We are in the age when God is extending great grace to whoever wants it.
Neal -
DeleteRitchie, in Matthew 5:17 Jesus said that he came to FULFILL.
How does pulling a Jekyll and Hyde personality switch 'fulfill' anything?
Much could be said about the mercy and love of God in the Old Testament and not just judgment.
Could it? Really? Because I'm pretty sure it gets vastly outweighed by the judgement. The OT is absolutely awash with blood.
However, the judge then stepped from his bench, went over to his daughter and pulled out his wallet and gave her the money to pay her ticket. Thus, the judge upheld the law and yet paid the fine his daughter could not afford.
God ordered the utter destruction and gruesome deaths of a massive number of people in the OT. I'm pretty sure he didn't die in their place.
So, there is no inconsistency. There is mercy and judgement in both covenants.
I don't remember the OT Yahweh being big on dispensing mercy. At all. I remember a lot of murder, genocide and wars...
Those that want great mercy can receive it. We are in the age when God is extending great grace to whoever wants it.
The oldest trick in the salesman's manual is to convince your customer they are sick so you can sell them the cure.
Ritchie, Jesus is the high priest, the sacrifice for sin, the mediator, the judge, the Word made flesh. He was the passover lamb of God. The Old testament priesthood, temple and sacrifices all were fulfilled forever by Jesus. He replaced it all with himself.
DeleteAs far as mercy in the OT, read Jonah. As far as judgment in the NT, read Revelation.
"God ordered the utter destruction and gruesome deaths of a massive number of people in the OT. I'm pretty sure he didn't die in their place."
You must remember the chronology and the context of each of the covenants. Think of a covenant as an agreement or contract. The old and new had different stipulations. God's contract today is the New Testament. Same God, different contracts.
God ordered the utter destruction and gruesome deaths of a massive number of people in the OT
DeleteI would suggest you read up on what these destroyed people were about. Example; The Amelakites attacked the Israelites first from behind when traveling through the desert, preying on the weak and weary. They practiced beastieality and child sacrifice to name a few. God did not order their destruction until 300 years after their first attack on the Israelites.
The oldest trick in the salesman's manual is to convince your customer they are sick so you can sell them the cure.
Sorry, but there is no denying there is evil in this world.
Rjop,
DeleteThey practiced beastieality and child sacrifice to name a few
Nothing puts the end of child sacrifice better than killing all the children preemptively
Neal,
Same God, different contracts
The question is did Jesus change morality not man's contract. The Bible describes God's actions, can God change objective good depending on the historical time period? If so is objective good relative?
Vel
DeleteI would suspect since the Bible proclaims children are a Gift from God, he can take back this gift and save them from having to endure their parents spiritual fate, if they would have continued to live as their parents did.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRjop,
DeleteI would suspect since the Bible proclaims children are a Gift from God, he can take back this gift and save them from having to endure their parents spiritual fate, if they would have continued to live as their parents did
So as punishment for their evil the parents,except a few women if I recall, are beaten to death,burned alive or hacked to pieces. The children in order to save them from themselves and share the same fate as their parents are beaten to death,burned alive or hacked to pieces.Too bad there wasn't an option C,like not kill the children at all
It makes me wonder if God was about saving children from free will,why make a gift of them in the first place?
Then I guess Christianity is not for you, now is it. I suppose believing we are all the result of purposeless chemical reactions which evolved over time only to eat, drink, reproduce and die is a better alternative. And may I add killings and evil taking place all around us with no ultimate justice or hope. Sounds good to me. Go peddle your anti-Christian appeals to pity on someone else, not interested.
DeleteRjop
DeleteThen I guess Christianity is not for you, now is it.
Certainly not the variety that is unquestioning.
suppose believing we are all the result of purposeless chemical reactions which evolved over time only to eat, drink, reproduce and die is a better alternative
Are those the only two choices, none or one who commands His followers to slaughter children for their own good?
And may I add killings and evil taking place all around us with no ultimate justice or hope. Sounds good to me
Perhaps more justice in this world would be something to strive for.
Go peddle your anti-Christian appeals to pity on someone else, not interested
Not anti anything except dogmatic unquestionable belief of any flavor. Been a Christian of some sort for all my life, but not at the sacrifice of reason. Or the belief that everything in the Bible is inerrant . As for pity " Ex intimis visceribus misericordia commoveor-- this is the point of the Christian faith for me.
As for your disinterest in defending your belief, à chacun son goût
Are those the only two choices, none or one who commands His followers to slaughter children for their own good?
DeleteYou could look into reincarnation or Islam.
As for the slaughter of children, would it make any difference if this was missing from the narrative? I somehow doubt it.
You and I were not there and we do not have full knowledge of what was taking place. One theory you might research, if your questioning is sincere, is the Nephilim and the possible connection to the tribes that were destroyed. Also, I really have no interest in 'defending' my belief, will take the bait to a certain extent, but won't waste much time 'defending' anything.
Neal -
DeleteThe Old testament priesthood, temple and sacrifices all were fulfilled forever by Jesus. He replaced it all with himself.
You're going to have to explain this a little more explicitly, I'm afraid. What is the point in making the old covenant if you are just going to bin it all and replace it with something utterly different? Because that is what Christianity effectively seems to be claiming. Monotheism is practically the only thing the NT and OT have in common - and even that's questionable with the NT's new concept of Holy Trinity.
Jesus did not fulfil the prophesies for the Jewish Messiah. The Messiah was supposed to gather all the Jewish people to the Promised Land (Isaiah 11:11-12, Jeremiah 23:7-8), restore them to the true faith (Ezekiel 37:23-24), subdue their enemies for good (Ezekiel 34:28, Isaiah 45:14, Isaiah 49:22-23), rule politically (Jeremiah 23:5) over a state of Israel unified as it was in the times of David and Solomon (Ezekiel 37:22), and usher in an era of worldwide peace (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3).
Jesus did none of those things. Even Jesus' concept of Messiah is different: a sacrificial lamb for humanity, rather than a great and powerful leader.
Not forgetting, of course, that Jesus, meek and mild, is supposedly the vicious, blood-thirsty, tyrannical Yahweh. A bigger U-turn in character than Ebenezer Scrooge.
Then there are plans for salvation. The OT never says anything about an afterlife, and indeed rather strongly implies that there is nothing beyond the veil of death (Psalms 6:5, Ecclesiastes 9:10, Isaiah 38:18). The OT's plan for salvation is that the day of reckoning will come on Earth, the Messiah will arrive to rule an Earthly kingdom with the chosen people - the dead of whom shall rise from the grave and all live together forever on Earth. It is only in the NT that things get pushed back beyond death - that the righteous shall be in God's kingdom in Heaven.
And notice I used the words 'chosen people' in the OT and 'righteous' in the NT. Because that's another idea flipped 180. The OT has a chosen people! A certain race who are superior, and are forbidden from intermarrying (Deuteronomy 7:3) and even had perpetual enemies who would categorically never join the covenant (Deuteronomy 23:3, Exodus 17:16). Then the NT comes along and everyone is free to join. Christians are actively encouraged to convert as many people as possible - from all nations and races. Suddenly, 'heathens' are defined by the lack of belief, not race.
The OT is obsessed with laws and rules as well, which end up being discarded. Jesus ignores the rule about working on the Sabbath - one of the Ten Commandments, no less (Luke 13:10-14, John 5:18), contradicts the law about ritual hand-washing (Mark 15:19-20) says food cannot defile a person, making all kosher dietary laws obsolete (Mark 7:18) and rubs shoulders with the lepers, beggars and 'unclean', breaking strict OT laws that they were to ostracise lepers (Numbers 5:1-5), the crippled and disabled (Leviticus 21:17-21, Deuteronomy 23:1) and even menstruating women and men who have wet dreams (Leviticus 15:19, 15:16).
In fact, it gets worse, because after giving each of its injunctions, the OT repeats the mantra: "It shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations" (Leviticus 7:36; 10:9; 23:14; 23:31; 23:41; also see Numbers 10:8; 18:23). The OT specifically states these laws will be in effect forever and will never be broken, which is exactly what Jesus did.
So in short, we start with a religion overruled by a tyrannical, bloody God of war, who gives his chosen people many laws to keep, and promises them a Messiah who will rule over the blessed among them on Earth. What they actually get is a meek and mild sacrificial lamb who doesn't fit the prophecies, who tells them to break all the rules, and to spread the word because now the message is for everyone. No wonder the Jews didn't recognise Jesus as the Messiah.
Neal -
DeleteWhy would God set up a covenant in the first place if he knew he was going to break it? Why set up all these rules and laws just to discard them later? In fact, why not just give the NT covenant right from the start? Why wasn't Jesus waiting for Adam and Eve right outside the gates of Eden as they were expelled to die for their sins right then and there and give everyone the new covenant right from the start? Why wait 4,000 years?
This is not progressive revelation. These are abrupt and dramatic u-turns. And the most parsimonious explanation is that the NT was written by new people with new ideas about what their religion should be like - and who were not guided by a constant deity who had inspired the OT too.
rjop -
DeleteI would suspect since the Bible proclaims children are a Gift from God, he can take back this gift and save them from having to endure their parents spiritual fate, if they would have continued to live as their parents did.
A truly chilling attitude. You have no problem with child murder?
Is there ANYTHING God could possible do which would cause you to question whether he was good and just? If so, what, because for most people, child murder is right up there with the worst of them. If not, then you lose all basis for declaring that God is 'good'. If He is good no matter what he does - including killing babies - then the term is utterly meaningless.
Is there ANYTHING God could possible do which would cause you to question whether he was good and just?
DeleteAs I said above, we do not have all the relevant facts of what was taking place, I nor you were there. This also is a common tactic of the new Atheist, bring up difficult Biblical narratives to inflame. Your not God so stop acting like you are passing judgment on something you do not have full knowledge of.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRichie,
DeleteTo address your rant above to Neal, Christs return will fulfill all the remaining prophecies. When Christ came as the suffering servant, the Jewish leaders were looking for the reigning king, missing or possibly ignoring the suffering servant prophecies. The restoration of Israel is setting the stage for remaining prophecies to be fulfilled. This might help understanding, though I highly doubt you have a sincere desire to do so> http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=15&contentID=3138&commInfo=9&topic=The%20Search%20for%20the%20Messiah
The OT *never* says anything about an afterlife.
Couple of examples among many;
But God will ransom my soul from the power of death, for He will receive me. Selah (Psalm 49:15)
He responded, "You have asked a hard thing; yet, if you see me as I am being taken from you, it will be granted you; if not, it will not." As they continued walking and talking, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them, and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind into heaven (2 Kings 2:10,11)
No wonder the Jews didn't recognise Jesus as the Messiah
Who wrote the NT again? Oh yeah, Jews.
And the most parsimonious explanation is that the NT was written by new people with new ideas about what their religion should be like - and who were not guided by a constant deity who had inspired the OT too
And another most parsimonious explanation is you are making hasty conclusions out of ignorance and possibly an over inflated ego.
rjop -
DeleteAs I said above, we do not have all the relevant facts of what was taking place, I nor you were there.
Fair enough. It is perfectly reasonable to say that God is beyond our judgement. He does apparently exceed our understanding allegedly. But notice this undermines our ability to call him good.
Either we CANNOT judge God, in which case we simply cannot say that he is good or bad, or we CAN judge God, in which case he has some horrendous deeds to account for.
To address your rant above to Neal, Christs return will fulfill all the remaining prophecies.
Massively insufficient on many levels. Firstly, why would Christ be so very different the second time around? Second, isn't the fact that he failed to fulfil the prophesies the first time around good grounds for the Hebrew not to accept him as the Messiah? Why should they listen to someone who claims to be the Messiah, but who doesn't fulfil the Messianic prophecies?
Psalm 49:15
That sounds like resurrection, not life beyond death.
2 Kings 2:10,11
Yes, there is that word, Heaven. But the passage is talking about literal transportation in a literal chariot of fire. Heaven here is a literal place where God dwells. It is not necessarily a place we may go to the other side of death.
(Also, notice this flatly contradicts
John 3:13, which says "No man hath ascended up to heaven,".)
Who wrote the NT again? Oh yeah, Jews.
Well, Paul wrote most of the books. The others are largely anonymous - including the gospels - but it is reasonable to take them as Christians.
And another most parsimonious explanation is you are making hasty conclusions out of ignorance and possibly an over inflated ego.
Insult is no argument. I sense you are getting defensive because I am asking questions which you are having trouble addressing.
Second, isn't the fact that he failed to fulfil the prophesies the first time around
DeleteSo according to your standards, because Christ did not fulfill ALL the prophecies the first time around the whole thing is false. Got it. And your mistaken about not fulfilling prophecies he did and will, just not on your timescale. Perhaps you should tell him to hurry up.
or we CAN judge God, in which case he has some horrendous deeds to account for.
Or we can suspend judgment as we do not have full knowledge of relevant facts. What appears to be horrific at face value, could be entirely justified if we knew all of what was taking place in the spiritual as well as earthly realm.
That sounds like resurrection, not life beyond death
Oh, Ok, so your dead then resurrected. Sounds pretty much like life after to death to me.
Well, Paul wrote most of the books. The others are largely anonymous - including the gospels - but it is reasonable to take them as Christians.
And your point is? Some are anonymous, some are not. However there is strong evidence most were written before 70AD as nothing was written about destruction of Jerusalem. Also, 90% of the population was illiterate at this time.
Insult is no argument. I sense you are getting defensive because I am asking questions which you are having trouble addressing.
Really, seen many insulting and berating comments from you all over these boards. And claiming more or less it's all a hoax, is no way to have an argument either. And nope, not having a difficult time answering, you are having a difficult time understanding.
rjop -
DeleteSo according to your standards, because Christ did not fulfill ALL the prophecies the first time around the whole thing is false.
Well we are talking about infalible beings here, supposedly. If someone makes prophecies about the Messiah, and the Messiah doesn't fulfil them, then yes, something has gone wrong somewhere.
In the meantime, I see it as perfectly reasonably for the Jews of 30AD to reject a so-called Messiah who doesn't fulfil their prophecies.
And your mistaken about not fulfilling prophecies he did and will, just not on your timescale.
This is not me being unreasonably demanding. If Jesus had fulfilled his prophecies - all of them - the first time around, maybe the Jews would have recognised him as the Messiah in the first place. Did he not want the Jews to recognise him? Did he come in disguise as a false Messiah?
Or we can suspend judgment as we do not have full knowledge of relevant facts.
Yes, we can. That's absolutely fine. Just as long as you never refer to God as being loving, good, kind, just and such like. If he is beyond our judgement then he is beyond judgement, and you are seemingly worshipping a being without the slightest idea whether he is kind or cruel.
Oh, Ok, so your dead then resurrected. Sounds pretty much like life after to death to me.
You are moving the goalposts. We were talking about the afterlife - Heaven and Hell. Existing in spirit in another realm. Not your Earthly body returning to an Earthly life.
And your point is?
Actually I'm wondering what your point is here. You were the one who introduced the authorship of the NT. And I don't know what point you were trying to make.
Really, seen many insulting and berating comments from you all over these boards.
I do try to be polite and respectful and give people the benefit of the doubt when appropriate. I am aware I have lost my rag a couple of times - at Cornelius after he wrote that digusting diatribe calling everyone who believes in evolution a murderer, and I can only take so much of Joe G's purile name-calling before responding in kind. What can I say, I'm human. But I rather hope these are the exception and not the rule.
And claiming more or less it's all a hoax, is no way to have an argument either.
Why not? It's a valid, rational opinion. I am making sincere points. Or do you find the very suggestion offensive? In which case I fear that may say more about you than it does about me...
And nope, not having a difficult time answering,
Great. Then perhaps you can plainly answer what you think accounts for the truly phenomenal shift in tone between the OT and NT, and especially of its principle characters (who are supposedly one and the same)?
Well we are talking about infalible beings here, supposedly. If someone makes prophecies about the Messiah, and the Messiah doesn't fullfil them, then yes, something has gone wrong somewhere.
DeleteSo being infalible means you do it all at once.. Got it.
In the meantime, I see it as perfectly reasonably for the Jews of 30AD to reject a so-called Messiah who doesn't fulfil their prophecies.
Great, I'm sure they will be happy to hear your approval, although again, not all of them rejected him.
Just as long as you never refer to God as being loving, good, kind, just
God is loving, good, kind, and just. Maybe you should stop ordering people around.
I do try to be polite and respectful and give people the benefit of the doubt when appropriate. I am aware I have lost my rag a couple of times - at Cornelius after he wrote that digusting diatribe calling everyone who believes in evolution a murderer, and I can only take so much of Joe G's purile name-calling before responding in kind. What can I say, I'm human. But I rather hope these are the exception and not the rule.
Uh Huh..
Great. Then perhaps you can plainly answer what you think accounts for the truly phenomenal shift in tone between the OT and NT, and especially of its principle characters (who are supposedly one and the same)?
I already did...
rjop -
DeleteSo being infalible means you do it all at once.. Got it.
Surely the whole point of GIVING prophecies about the Messiah is so that the Hebrews could recognise him as such?
Given that, they could hardly be blamed for failed to acknowledge the Messiah before he had fulfilled them all, could they?
Great, I'm sure they will be happy to hear your approval,
It's got nothing to do with approval. Stop trying to make out that I am being arrogant. I'm just pointing out that anyone who took Jesus for the Jewish Messiah is actually making an irrational leap of faith, even by Christianity's own standards.
although again, not all of them rejected him.
I'm not denying some DID make that leap. That doesn't make it rational.
God is loving, good, kind, and just.
You just said God is beyond our judgement. Those are judgements.
You cannot have it both ways. Is he above our judgement or not?
Maybe you should stop ordering people around.
I am not ordering anyone. I am merely stating simple, logical facts. God cannot be BOTH beyond our judgement and NOT beyond our judgement. He is one or the other.
I already did...
I don't recall you doing so, and re-reading our conversation here I cannot see you doing so. Could you give a brief recap please?
Rjob
DeleteAre those the only two choices, none or one who commands His followers to slaughter children for their own good?
You could look into reincarnation or Islam.
Too late,born a Catholic always a Catholic ,at least for me. Perhaps a bad Catholic but one nevertheless
As for the slaughter of children, would it make any difference if this was missing from the narrative? I somehow doubt it.
To the children it may have had some difference.
You and I were not there and we do not have full knowledge of what was taking place.
Excellent point. Does this also include the God's participation? One tribe slaughtering another,killing the children to eliminate future threat, justifying action by shuffling off responsibility to the divine.Totally believable.
That a just, all good God, who values free will actually commanded it, troubling. After all, the criminals who crashed planes in buildings used the same logic, no action is wrong if sanctioned by God
One theory you might research, if your questioning is sincere, is the Nephilim and the possible connection to the tribes that were destroyed.
I have great respect for Biblical scholars,and love new ideas. If fact that is exactly why we are conversing on my part.
Also, I really have no interest in 'defending' my belief, will take the bait to a certain extent, but won't waste much time 'defending' anything.
Bad choice of word ( defending) on my part, perhaps discussing your ideas would have been more accurate.
When things don't make sense to me and someone says it makes sense to them I am curious how, I like to know how things work.
Surely the whole point of GIVING prophecies about the Messiah is so that the Hebrews could recognise him as such?
DeleteNope, the Messiah was for the whole world not just the Jews. Perhaps the ego's of the ones who did not accept, hindered them, as they were looking for a political messiah, bypassing all the lamb/suffering servant prophecies that were fulfilled right before them. AS I said above, the other prophecies which were not fulfilled then, will be fulfilled at the second coming of Christ. He will sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem, etc. etc. You seem hell bent on separating the OT from the NT. Do you believe the OT is true but the NT is a hoax, or do you believe the whole thing is a sham? Or you just hate the belief in Jesus Christ.
Given that, they could hardly be blamed for failed to acknowledge the Messiah
The first Christians were Jews > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity
Stop trying to make out that I am being arrogant.
Stop blaming me your arrogance is obvious..
You just said God is beyond our judgement
No, I said the actions of God regarding the deaths of children are beyond our judgment, as we do not have all knowledge of what was occurring. Re-read what I said above.
God cannot be BOTH beyond our judgement and NOT beyond our judgement.
Yes he can, because again, in some situations which are hard to understand, our knowledge is finite and limited. Again, re-read what I said above.
I don't recall you doing so, and re-reading our conversation here I cannot see you doing so. Could you give a brief recap please?
I lightly touched on my thoughts above. Why should I exert more effort, when it is obvious you think you have it all figured out.
That a just, all good God, who values free will actually commanded it
DeleteSo then by this standard, Hitler should have been allowed to exercise his full free will unchecked and possibly would have ruled the world?
After all, the criminals who crashed planes in buildings used the same logic, no action is wrong if sanctioned by God
Yes, this is a good point and I do not have the answers except to say Islam text commands killing to force their religion. The Isrealites were dealing with what appears to be very evil people and were not killing because they wanted to force the God of Israel on them. Just as it was justified for us to take out Bin Laden, or do you believe he should have been allowed to fully exercise his fee will?
I understand the killing of children is the sticking point, but again we don't know all of what was taking place and if the Nephilim theory is correct, (which the Jews did believe along with early church fathers) then it would somewhat make more sense, along with destroying animals due to disease from beasteality practices.
Also, in many instances where God in the Biblical narrative commanded these, there were centuries before it was carried out with many warnings beforehand.
rjop -
DeleteNope, the Messiah was for the whole world not just the Jews.
But he was the Messiah as predicted in the Jewish faith? And he failed to fulfil the Jewish prophecies.
AS I said above, the other prophecies which were not fulfilled then, will be fulfilled at the second coming of Christ.
If he had fulfilled them all the first time, perhaps more people would have recognised him as such. Or did he not WANT to be recognised?
You seem hell bent on separating the OT from the NT. Do you believe the OT is true but the NT is a hoax, or do you believe the whole thing is a sham?
Sham is a harsh word. I don't believe either are accurate, historical records, certainly. It seems they merely consist of the myths and legends of the cultures of the people writing them.
But the dramatic and total shift between them casts a great deal of doubt on the claim that the NT is a historical and spiritual extension of the Old. Bigger differences between them on absolutely central issues such as salvation can hardly be imagined. I don't believe either is actuall true, but believing BOTH are true is a logical contradition in itself.
The first Christians were Jews
I know. But that does not mean all - or even the majority - of Jews became Christian, does it? They didn't. Christianity was very much a fringe religion until the 4th century.
Stop blaming me your arrogance is obvious..
It is apparent to you because you are assuming it.
"God cannot be BOTH beyond our judgement and NOT beyond our judgement."
Yes he can, because again, in some situations which are hard to understand, our knowledge is finite and limited.
So when God does apparently good things, we can judge him as good, but when he does apparently bad things then we suddenly have no right to judge him?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Double standards, much?
Why should I exert more effort, when it is obvious you think you have it all figured out.
To back up your position and make your argument seem logical and well-reasoned. It generally helps.
And he failed to fulfil the Jewish prophecies.
DeleteNo he did not, he fulfilled hundreds. Again, the remaining will be fulfilled upon his second coming. Can you read? or perhaps your are willfully closing your ears.
but when he does apparently bad things then we suddenly have no right to judge him?
If we do not have all relevant facts nor complete knowledge of what was taking place, our judgment may be in error, therefore Judgment may be suspended on something difficult to comprehend.
To back up your position and make your argument seem logical and well-reasoned. It generally helps.
No argument would be reasonable to you, as you have already made up your mind.
It is apparent to you because you are assuming it
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! It is apparent, because again it is obvious.
Cont;
DeleteIt seems they merely consist of the myths and legends of the cultures of the people writing them.
Of course it does, because you want it to be a myth and would close your ears and find a reason to not accept anything that demonstrates otherwise.
@ Vel
Mankind actually attempts to curtail free will when it conflicts with other interests thru laws or actions
So why do we whine when God has done this in isolated OT narratives?
God did not limit OBL's free will to kill innocent people, a Navy Seal did,too painlessly IMO.
Why did the navy seal do this? Why does this desire of not letting evil completely take over exist? Why would it even matter? After all, in the animal kingdom (where we supposedly evolved from) animals kill all the time with no true self awareness or consciousness.
Rjop,
Delete. Vel...Mankind actually attempts to curtail free will when it conflicts with other interests thru laws or actions
Rjop.....So why do we whine when God has done this in isolated OT narratives?
God is omnipotent by definition,capable of anything logically possible. Curtailing human free will,obviously is possible. God is obviously able to curtail human free will and has by flooding the entire world prejudging all of humanity except a few. Man could be God's puppet.
However if God desires man to freely choose between good and evil, free will is required. The children did not have that choice, they received the same treatment as their sinful fathers. Their life was taken away for the potential of evil. Every man has that potential,why single out punishment for some but not others? This seems unjust, God is supposed to be just by His very nature.
Vel....God did not limit OBL's free will to kill innocent people, a Navy Seal did,too painlessly IMO
Why did the navy seal do this?
He took an oath, he choose a ethic which required honoring his oath
Why does this desire of not letting evil completely take over exist? Why would it even matter?
Because we don't want to be killed by a terrorist, we feel pain at others sorrow, it is wasteful, it is an attack on a concept,freedom, which we choose to value, or any other reason.
After all, in the animal kingdom (where we supposedly evolved from) animals kill all the time with no true self awareness or consciousness.
True, animals kill each other all the time. But they have developed strategies to survive, humans do the same. One way is for each member of society agree to certain rules ,how those rules are enforced is up to the group.
My question is if God truly caused the children to be killed for evil that they neither understood or committed and this is just,why does he allow Stalin to commit atrocities and die in his sleep. Why punish children in this world and let evil flourish waiting for the afterlife to punish?
Neal -
ReplyDeleteFrom what little I have read of this, he probably had a kind of fuzzy belief in some kind of a creator
... which makes him a theist.
but he was very earthly minded. Whatever moved his earthly agenda forward at the moment was what he supported or persecuted.
Well certainly. Dictators do tend to be like that. I'm not saying he was a champion of religion. He dedicated himself to his own ends ultimately, not those of any church. The only thing the people who he oppressed had in common was that they got in his way. He was not fulfilling some religiously-motivated agenda.
My point? Well, for one thing, the knackered religious card of 'Hitler was an atheist' is probably wrong. For another, it is perfectly possible to accept ID and still advocate eugenics (that seems to be the point Cornelius is stuck on).
It seems that Hitler wrote a second book.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Secret_Book
The first chapter makes it abundantly clear that Hilter believed in evolution and that evolution was his core belief.
The quote below is from Chapter 4, Book 2 of "Mein Kampf"
ReplyDelete"The first step which visibly brought mankind away from the animal world was that which led to the first invention. The invention itself owes its origin to the ruses and stratagems which man employed to assist him in the struggle with other creatures for his existence and often to provide him with the only means he could adopt to achieve success in the struggle. Those first very crude inventions cannot be attributed to the individual; for the subsequent observer, that is to say the modern observer, recognizes them only as collective phenomena. Certain tricks and skilful tactics which can be observed in use among the animals strike the eye of the observer as established facts which may be seen everywhere; and man is no longer in a position to discover or explain their primary cause and so he contents himself with calling such phenomena 'instinctive.'"
It sounds like fairly conventional evolutionary anthroplogy.
Hitler seemed to use the words "Nature" and "The Creator" interchangibly in "Mein Kampf." That would make him, in all probability a Panthiest.
ReplyDelete""The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.""
ReplyDeleteThis is from chapter 11, book 1. Higher development sounds a lot like evolution to me.
Here;s more from the same chapter:
ReplyDelete"Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.
If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best, if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health."
It sounds like pretty standard Darwinism to me.
The entire myth of evolution has been riddled with hoaxes and false information. Haeckel's FAKED drawings, Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor, etc were used to convince the unsuspecting public the evolution myth was true. No wonder evolutionists don't want their critics to be heard in the halls of "academia."
ReplyDeletenat -
ReplyDeleteWith respect, what point are you trying to make, exactly? That Hitler wasn't a Christian?
I'm afraid you are not proving that point. Accepting evolution does NOT preclude a belief in God. The logic of "Hitler accepted evolution - therefore he was an atheist" is entirely fallacious. A great many people today believe in both evolution and God.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRitchie,
ReplyDeleteWith respect, what point are you trying to make, exactly? You keep beating the same drum, Hitler was not an Atheist but a supposed Christian? Are you suggesting that self proclaimed Atheists/non religious folk cannot kill in such a manner as Hitler did?
Since natschuster is so well read in these matters perhaps he could explain the apparent contradiction between Hitler's alleged admiration for Darwinism and the Nazi's purging of books about the subject from German libraries:
ReplyDeleteGuidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
[...]
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel).
rjop -
ReplyDeleteNot at all. They certainly can. But it is a very common Christian canard that Hitler is an example of what happens when atheists get in power, or some such. And I am showing that this is wrong.
I mention it here because Cornelius seems to take it as red that Hitler was outlandish that Hitler believed in ID. But I don't see why.
Ritchie:
ReplyDeleteI don't know what Hitler's religious beliefs were. It seems to me, from the evidence that he was a pantheist, a nature worshipper. But his core belief, the one that motivated him to build death camps, was evolution. Makes sense. He worshipped nature, evolution is a natural law.
IHS:
ReplyDeleteSince natschuster is so well read in these matters perhaps he could explain the apparent contradiction between Hitler's alleged admiration for Darwinism and the Nazi's purging of books about the subject from German libraries:
Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
[...]
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel).
The quote is from the Reich Librarian's Association. I don't knoiw if what they said was the official policy of the entire Third Reich. I really don't think so because evolution was taught in Universities under the Nazis. Wasn't Nobel prize winner Lorenz an evolutionist and a Nazi? He was a professor under the Third Reich. Or maybe the Reich Librarians didn't like Darwin's version because it was English and not German. They didn't like Relativity since it was developed by a Jew.
I mention it here because Cornelius seems to take it as red that Hitler was outlandish that Hitler believed in ID. But I don't see why.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Torley:
I read with interest your recent blog entry:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/noors-non-sequitur-or-did-hitler-believe-in-intelligent-design/
While I may not agree with your overall perspective, in fairness, you make some good points on that particular statement in that particular slide. I am convinced that you are very right that I inappropriately
conflated Intelligent Design with basic creationism (though I disagree with other facets in that I think he was indeed a creationist). You conclude with, “Let us therefore hope that Professor Noor amends his last slide before his next online course starts in January 2013.” Given your points, I am indeed convinced to amend that slide. I plan for my next iteration to delete the specific reference to Intelligent Design in that slide.
Thanks for diplomatically attacking this point with information, rather than taking on a stance of grandstanding.
Sincerely,
Mohamed Noor
nat -
ReplyDeleteI don't know what Hitler's religious beliefs were. It seems to me, from the evidence that he was a pantheist, a nature worshipper.
Really? What evidence indicates that?
But his core belief, the one that motivated him to build death camps, was evolution.
I think you mean eugenics, no? Try not to get them confused.
Makes sense. He worshipped nature, evolution is a natural law.
?????
Quote Ritchie quoting me:
ReplyDelete"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I don't know what Hitler's religious beliefs were. It seems to me, from the evidence that he was a pantheist, a nature worshipper.
Really? What evidence indicates that?
But his core belief, the one that motivated him to build death camps, was evolution.
I think you mean eugenics, no? Try not to get them confused.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Hitler seemed to use the terms "Creator" and "Nature" interchangibly. IMHO that means he considered them equivalent. That means he was Pantheist.
And I should have said evolutionary eugenics.
nat -
ReplyDeleteHitler seemed to use the terms "Creator" and "Nature" interchangibly. IMHO that means he considered them equivalent. That means he was Pantheist.
He specifically stated he was a Catholic.
And I should have said evolutionary eugenics.
What is evolutionary eugenics? How does it differ from normal eugenics?
HE said he was Catholic in speeches he gave early on. He was doing what politicians do best, and lying for votes.
ReplyDelete""The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.""
This quote says higher development (evolution) depends on the superior not mating with the inferior. That's evolutionary eugenics.