dorkafork, do you even know what ‘understatement’ means? Did you read Mein Kampf? Adolf hated God and Christ and all religion

Yes, I have. Have you? “Hence today 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.” Recognize that passage? There are many others like it if you bother to look.

OH no you diten?

sonnyspats1 on April 26, 2007 at 7:00 PM

You’re right, I most certainly did not. I did not bring it up. I am rebutting a false claim repeated by O’Reilly and a commenter here that Hitler was an atheist. When people play that game I will throw it right back in their faces. Think about how some of you are reacting when I said Hitler was a Christian. Then try and remember that before you make an ahistorical argument that he was an atheist. You can read more about it here, though you could just read Mein Kampf. You can find the full text online.

(assuming you read this, I don’t think I’ll be answering simply because of where it is on the page)

Historians of that era either fluffed things up to make them seem important or seriously downplayed them if they went counter to their narrative.

I’m not saying Josephus was a Christian (which would be, well, dumb). All I’m saying is that if the miracles attributed to Jesus went on, and Josephus was made aware of them, he would have written them down. If he thought they were something important, there would have been serious embellshiment to make them more than what they seemed.

What is interesting is that I can find each and every miracle attributed to Jesus in other, older religions. The most accurate description of the early Church is Josephus, and he didn’t think it was too important to warrant more than a passing mention. Instead of worrying about how much Josephus was altered, I would be more concerned about how much the Bible was altered (and I was, so I read the stuff from the cutting room floor, then I abandoned organized religion, then I abandoned faith and went for reason).

Ancient histories cannot be read the same way one might read, erm, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich or something by Sir Winston. There was no sourcing, no fact chequing and no counterpoint. Modern historians have a bird trying to figure out the context of some of the ancient writings. Many are akin to propaganda and not factual.

dorkafork on April 26, 2007 at 12:45 PM

OH no you diten?

Hitler was a Christian. Arguably not a good Christian, to make an understatement. Naturally he was driven more by Nazism than religious beliefs

dorkafork on April 26, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Okay, I’ve heard some really stupid Scheiss on this blog over the past year, but above is maybe the dumbest yet

not worth arguing with and beneath contempt, but I applaud the two souls who tried to reason with a………..fool

dorkafork, do you even know what ‘understatement’ means? Did you read Mein Kampf? Adolf hated God and Christ and all religion, and created a puppet “German Christian” church that was to eventually push aside the Lutheran and other churches in the same way that the SS was meant to push aside the Wehrmacht

Krydor on April 26, 2007 at 3:05 PM

I think that no historian is totally impartial. That is why on any given historical topic, there are revisionists that have a different slant on past happenings.

Janos is 100% correct when he says that early historians were not the same as their modern day counterparts. Egyptians, for instance, were quite fond of erasing dynasties and forgetting about losses in battle.

Josephus wasn’t an impartial historian, writing without bias and using only facts. That doesn’t take away from his work, but it must be viewed through the lens of the time.

At any rate, it’s clear that professed belief in Christianity does nothing to necessarily prevent one from behaving in ways antithetical to those beliefs, anyway. Hitler would simply be an extreme case. Whether it’s a priest molesting children or Bill Clinton committing adultery, it’s easy to find cases with which to argue that identification with religious morality has no more power over human behavior than identification with ethical beliefs derived in any other fashion.

Incidentally, I am now formally invoking Godwin’s Law.

dorkafork on April 26, 2007 at 12:45 PM

I think you are mincing words. Certainly Hitler has no love for Christianity or any other religion after he assumed power. As for the communist, they elevated the state to a God like level not too different from atheism.

Hitler was a Christian. Arguably not a good Christian, to make an understatement. Naturally he was driven more by Nazism than religious beliefs, in the same way that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were driven by Communism than atheism.

dorkafork on April 26, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Arguable is not the word.
He was NOT a Christian and it’s a smear and a slander and libel against Christians to continue to repeat that lie.
No one is a Christian until he or she repents and becomes “born again in the spirit” and lives henceforth according to the Christ. It is not inheritable, each person must make that decision, anyone of any religion can choose it or not. Classic proof of non-inheritability is that wild-creature known ruefully by the townfolk as “the pastor’s son.”
A person can be raised in a Christian household, by parents who have chosen Christianity, and still not be a Christian.
Hitler also engaged in occult practices, which is expressly forbidden in the Bible, and identified as evil and despicable to God. That he targetted Jews, God’s Chosen People, is also a glaring sign that he had no respect or love for any of the Christian heritage and teachings. That he led an aggressive and murderous regime that was directly and indirectly responsible for millions of deaths should normally be sufficient proof that he didn’t know “Christian” from a hole in the ground, but people keep pushing it. It’s ugly and not right.

Krydor on April 25, 2007 at 11:46 PM

I agree with Rose’s assessment that Josephus is writing from the detachment and impartiality attributed to good historians. Additional, he may have been exercising some caution since the Christians were probably being persecuted by the orthodoz Jews at that time.

Well that’s one excuse I guess PR. =)

frreal on April 26, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Which forum over there do you want me to research and address? They’re all quoting critical scholars and no conservative Christian scholars. They’re preaching to their own choir. Why do you think that is?

As O’Reilly pointed out the other night, the biggest mass murderers of the 20th century (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) were all atheists.

Hitler was a Christian. Arguably not a good Christian, to make an understatement. Naturally he was driven more by Nazism than religious beliefs, in the same way that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were driven by Communism than atheism.

Here is the link

frreal on April 26, 2007 at 8:05 AM

I see a bunch of stuff thats already been refuted by Christian scholars. Generally, on boards like that, the posters avoid interacting with any conservative Christian scholars on the subject in question. The same is true for Muslims in their criticisms of the Bible. They don’t care to read the arguments that differ from their own because they might be wrong, and the Bible might be true, i.e, there is a God, and he is the judge.

The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Oh Hitch, talk dirty to me some more.

Enrique on April 25, 2007 at 9:36 PM

Hysterical. Hitchens makes an absolute statement and then says anybody else who does is an infant in the same breath.

Oh, I know that history, as we know it, wasn’t done the same way. This is part of the reason that that Josephus’ dry blurb regarding Jesus is so darn important. Historians loved to add the interventions of God and their own biases into their writings. Didn’t happen, but he found Christians, for lack of a better word “interesting”, so he made some notes.

Josephus was, by most accounts, a good Jew who spent his time rehabbing the Jewish image in Rome. I have zero problem with alterations of his work over time. I have no issue with the notion that Jesus was a real person. I don’t buy into the divine/miracle aspect.

What conceivable difference does Hitchins’ lack of belief make to anyone beyond himself? He makes an eloquent argument, one I don’t share, but by definition faith can’t be proved or disproved. That’s why they call it “faith”.

(This is less a comment on this particular thread than the many others that have clogged HA. This one hasn’t (yet) wandered into wrath of God/my God’s better than your God territory/only idiots believe or don’t believe/only believers have morals/and the ever popular our country is a Christian nation (wink and nod) etc etc ad nauseum.

Hitchens is really good at building a argument against religion (or at least what he thinks religion is) and then building an enticing straw-man religious perspective that justifies his argument.

Maybe Hitchen’s next effort might be to actually first learn some real theology, and then pose an argument based on real religoius views.

Hitchen’s views are neither new or enlightening. The American Humanist magazine publishes arguments like this all the time. And this magazine is not a credible theological source.

The only people who buy into these arguments are people who already agree with Hitchens. There is nothing credible in his writings to justify his position to the truly religious community.

The four maxims Hitchens lists are grounded on what he calls “wish-thinking”. While this may be true in certain circumstances, it by no means represents the theology of most religions.

Maybe Hitchen’s should study up on “hope-thinking” and “faith-thinking”, the difference between these and “wish-thinking” is pretty significant.

Some pretty informed debaters herestrong> I would love to see what you have to offer PRCalDude or any others up to the challenge.

frreal on April 26, 2007 at 8:05 AM

I want to see the pressupositional debate between the two…

Exactly. In order for you to have credibility in an argument, you need to interact with the best the other side has to offer, and be able to represent their position honestly and accurately.

PRCalDude on April 25, 2007 at 8:02 PM

Some pretty informed debaters herestrong> I would love to see what you have to offer PRCalDude or any others up to the challenge.

HItchens is a strange bird. The man can seem simultaneously drunk or brilliant based upon your agreement or disagreement with him.

Matticus Finch on April 25, 2007 at 11:31 PM

He’s always brilliant, and sometimes drunk at the same time. I adore his talent for writing and his courage. He hid Salman Rushdie in his DC apartment, at the risk to his entire family, until that ‘bright’ Maureen Dowd just had to talk about it.

Sometimes I don’t agree with every word but it’s always a delight to read him. I’m so happy we have him in our time, and on our side on the WoT.

Who needs such a kneejerk “positive” that’s as dogmatically silly as the jihadozombies’ “negative”.

For all of its human faults, most religion has been “the heart of a heartless world”.

I’ll take Jesus’s wit over Hitchens’.