We need honesty in the abortion debate

Abortion. Never in the history of the nation has such an egregious violation of human rights been codified by law. Not even slavery or Indian removal policies compare to the 50 million unborn children snuffed out of existence by activist judges and their abortionist pimps.

It’s not all driven by money, however. The picayune desire of modern feminists to revolt against the patriarchal system has turned them into child-killers and psychopaths. And why shouldn’t Pro-Lifers be clear in this regard? Dismembering children to protest male dominance is nothing short of lunacy, yet it’s precisely the stand modern feminists have chosen to take. Disgusting.

Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t reserve at least some blame for the Pro-Life camp itself. This group that has gone out of its way to accommodate child-killers but instead need to call a spade a spade. The lie that “good faith views exist on both sides” and accepting their deceptive euphemistic language is simply ridiculous. In what universe is slaughtering innocent children morally benign? I know, I know. Not everyone agrees with the opinion that life begins at conception. Except – it’s not an opinion; it’s a medical fact pointed out repeatedly.

It’s no more a debatable point than the Law of Gravity. Conception marks the beginning of a human being, period. So, Pro-Lifers need to stop accommodating evil and fight it! Stop being cowards! Speak the truth! Until we do that, you’re going to have these half-witted morons on social media and other sites spewing their nonsense. More evident than ever that people make God in their own image, or perhaps vice versa.

Comments

  1. brycelancaster says:

    Conception marks the physical beginning of a human being, but not the consciousness of one. Until the fetus develops to a certain point, (around the end of the first trimester), it doesn’t have the rights afforded to human beings because it isn’t one. It’s an empty vessel with the POTENTIAL to be a human being. Removing an empty vessel is not akin to murdering a human being.

  2. You seem rather emotionally charged and passionate about this subject, Terrance.

    I’m curious about what you think about these statistics:

    About 20% of all pregnancies end in abortion. (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)
    About 30% of pregnancies end in miscarriage.
    As many as 75% of all conceptions miscarry. (http://miscarriage.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/miscarriage-statistics.htm)

    Are you as passionate for those conceptions that do not result in the birth of a human being? Does your God not have the same value for those lives? Why are you willing to excuse God for snuffing out the existence of far more many lives than “activist judges and their abortionist pimps”?

  3. Conception marks the physical beginning of a human being, but not the consciousness of one. Until the fetus develops to a certain point, (around the end of the first trimester), it doesn’t have the rights afforded to human beings because it isn’t one. It’s an empty vessel with the POTENTIAL to be a human being. Removing an empty vessel is not akin to murdering a human being.

    I see. So if people must achieve their rights by attaining consciousness, it logically follows that should they lose that consciousness, they lose their rights. Hmm.This sounds well and good until you consider that humanity is not something achieved or attained; it’s a static state. There are no degrees of humanity. One either is or isn’t a human being, and since our laws are not, and should not be, based on developmental ability, your argument fails.

    Besides, your argument is unscientific by nature. It’s a political and philosophical point of view. According to you, personhood is achieved at the point of consciousness. To others, it’s not until the human is self-aware. And still to others it’s not until the human is born. Who is right? Who is wrong? And how do we determine such a thing? We don’t.

  4. zqtx,

    You seem rather emotionally charged and passionate about this subject, Terrance.

    Yes, I am. Why I’m Pro-Life. It’s poorly written, I admit. But it gives some background.

    About 20% of all pregnancies end in abortion.

    It’s very sad. It’s also very sad when children die of cancer and other natural causes. And I support the medical community in making these tragedies a thing of the past.

    Are you as passionate for those conceptions that do not result in the birth of a human being?

    I’m deeply saddened by such loss, and I sincerely hope the medical community can improve early detection methods of pregnancies and problems and make tragedies a thing of the past, like I said.

    I suppose, however, that I’m interested in learning why you’re bringing this up. We’ve posted about the Travyon Martin murder on this blog before and I didn’t see you posting heart-attack statistics. Perhaps because you also recognize a moral difference between intentional and unintentional death.

    Does your God not have the same value for those lives? Why are you willing to excuse God for snuffing out the existence of far more many lives than “activist judges and their abortionist pimps”?

    I don’t address religious arguments in abortion debates. None of my arguments revolve around religion, God, or the Bible. My ending sentence above reflects a debate I had on Facebook yesterday. Every pro-choice argument I encountered was religious, Christian, in nature, from self-professed Christians. Such arguments are obviously inconsistent with the Bible and the nature of the biblical God, so I simply remarked that too many people these days are making God in their own image.

  5. But John, that’s the point.

    The miscarriage has to be attributed to God. He either caused it to happen or allowed it to happen. He has to have some accountability here if we are to consider him omnipotent. Either that or He just doesn’t put the value of a fertilized egg on the same level as you do.

    You’re willing to excuse God for ending an innocent life as he sees fit and even declare that he’s the moral authority as well. Wow.

    Terrance,
    I’m bringing this up because you seem to place such a strong value on a fertilized egg. I just find it odd that you are so willing to ignore the culpability of your own deity. As the statistics show, God is responsible for far more deaths and yet you and John are writing them off as “natural” and “unintentional”.

    Just something to think about…

  6. I’m bringing this up because you seem to place such a strong value on a fertilized egg.

    No, I place a “strong value” on human beings at all stages of development.

    I just find it odd that you are so willing to ignore the culpability of your own deity.

    John 18:36, “Jesus said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.'”

    This verse isn’t directly connected to our discussion, but it does illustrate the way in which the world has turned its back on God. Humans made their choice and now suffer the consequences of an imperfect and oftentimes cruel world.

    God doesn’t fail people; people fail Him. You can call that an excuse if you want, but it’s perfectly consistent with Christian theology, which obviously you know very little about.

    Regardless, none of this has to do with elective abortion. You’re trying to derail the thread with criticism of my religion because you can’t defend your anti-life views.

  7. I’m not trying to derail the thread. I’m merely pointing out that if you place such a value on human beings, even as fertilized eggs, then you must have to question the fact that a greater number of humans are killed at the very hand of your deity.

    You then ignore that fact to say humans have turned their back on God and now suffer as a result of it, essentially blaming the victim. God seems to always get all the credit and none of the blame.

    I would think at some point you would question why God aborts so many lives.

  8. zqtx,

    No, I don’t question it because it’s not at the hand of my deity. Like I said, familiarize yourself with Christian theology before pointing out imagined inconsistencies.

    If humans turned their back on God, how are they the victim?

  9. “The miscarriage has to be attributed to God. He either caused it to happen or allowed it to happen.”

    1. No it doesn’t “have” to be attributed to God.
    2. If that is the case, then all natural deaths are “attributed to God”.
    3. Are you really incapable of drawing a distinction between a natural event (miscarriage) and an abortion?
    4. Are you really trying to draw some sort of moral equivalency between miscarriage and abortion.
    5. I’d suggest that everyone who considers them selves pro-life considers any pre natal death a tragedy and would vigorously work to reduce them no matter what the cause.

    John/Terance, is it just me or does anyone else see a similarity between Z and Dan?

  10. Terrance, sorry for the missing “r”, I wasn’t fast enough to fix it.

  11. I’ve noticed that any natural event that is seen as favorable (often considered miraculous) and an “act of God” and natural events with negative outcomes and consequences are distanced from any accountability and written off as just “natural”.

    I understand perfectly the distinction between natural events and man-made events, but that really has nothing to do with the point I’m making.

    Do you believe God has nothing to do with naturally occurring events? Is He just an observer or is He actively involved? Either way, do you not think he has the ability to see to it that a fertilized egg becomes a breathing human being? I ask this to all believers out there.

  12. Of course I believe that God has something to do with natural events. He is both. Of course He has the ability to see that a fertilized egg (which is a human being) gestates to birth. You may not have noticed this, but it happens thousands of times each and every day.

    But, I could just as easily attribute these things to evolution or the circle of life or whatever without invoking God. No matter who you attribute natural occurrences to, the fact remains that they are natural. They are part of life. Abortion is not.

    As to “the point you’re making”, I don’t believe I’ve ever actually seen you make a point. Perhaps you should try it. It would be a new experience for everyone.

  13. How can a god who knows you in the womb or even before conception, then snuff you and or your consciousness out? I have repeatedly asked how exactly you are able to argue “natural” causes for the wealth of pregnancies that end in miscarriage, and gotten an array of contradictions. These seems to be no codified apologetics in this regard. How can there be a “natural” cause in a world that your god controls your very conception? Or knows your existence prior to your existence.

    The proverbial cake and eating it to.

    How does a supposedly moral and omnipotent, and omniscient creator come to make a fetus, only to murder it at some predetermined moment in the future? I ask, to what end?

    This is where your morality comes from?

  14. R.
    “Like I said, familiarize yourself with Christian theology before pointing out imagined inconsistencies.”

    To take your “objection” to it’s natural conclusion. Why does God allow anyone to die? Or, why does God allow His followers to die?

    The human death rate is 100%, why is the timing an issue?

  15. The term “fertilized egg” is a misnomer. At conception both the sperm and egg cease to exist. In its place is a new human individual. There is no longer any “egg” that could be described as “fertilized.”

  16. mmmike917,

    Good point.

  17. Z, did you even read the post I linked to about God’s culpability?

  18. “I’ve noticed that any natural event that is seen as favorable (often considered miraculous) and an “act of God” and natural events with negative outcomes and consequences are distanced from any accountability and written off as just “natural”.”

    I believe there was a time not so long ago when even insurance policies made allowances for “acts of God”, which implied some type of natural disaster. Hence, both good and bad has been attributed to Him. Christian teaching instructs us to thank God for even the trials of life. I don’t know that anyone necessarily attempts to distance God from any happening in life, though I would say it is natural to give thanks only for the good stuff.

    “How does a supposedly moral and omnipotent, and omniscient creator come to make a fetus, only to murder it at some predetermined moment in the future?”

    God cannot murder. That is a term that only applies to human beings, not the Supreme Being. God has sole authority as regards the giving and taking of life. It’s His universe.

    It is rather childish to expect that anyone should have an answer for every goofy question an atheist believes is a game breaker. But I’m quite sure you’ll have all the answer you need when your time comes. In the meantime, I’m quite sure God is humbled and ashamed by the knowledge that He doesn’t meet the standards of one R. Nash.

    • Your apologetics are terrible.

      Setting aside the semantics (murder/kill/abort) and surprisingly inconsistent uses of the word “natural” on this particular thread, why not give an answer even from your “non-childish” position? Why is it that when the “childish”, or tough questions come, the apologizers run for the hills.

      I mean even Dr. Craig doesn’t consider this childish, and has at least a canned answer.

      Do you mean to tell us that in spite of all of your awesomeness and study of christian doctrine, that maybe you don’t know? Or maybe that in spite of all of your gods omnipotence, he still does things that are immoral. Interesting that he supposedly made you in his image, but gave you free will and only an ability to understand or appreciate the happenings in life which have positive outcomes, but zero ability to understand why he doesn’t “murder” 20-30% of all pregnancies.

      Dismissing positions as childish does zero to promote your position as tangible. Promoting your position by giving non answers and only red herrings about ” when my time comes”, is sadly what most christians are capable of giving when they are totally clueless.

  19. brycelancaster says:

    I don’t see why this has evolved into a religious debate. Religion should have nothing to do with laws passed since your God doesn’t exist.

    • Thats a bold assertion Bryce.

      Im surprised professing homosexuals would support abortion. They’d make natural prolifers given their penchant for “equal rights” you’d think they would also be for equal rights for the pre-born.

  20. bryce,

    You hadn’t ought make matter-of-fact statements without so much as a scintilla of evidence.

    Regardless, prohibiting abortion has nothing to do with religion.

  21. Nash,

    I referred to your question as childish because it is. It forgets that death comes in a variety of ways and at a variety of times in any given person’s life. Among those are deaths that occur at either extreme end of a given person’s life. When a 92 year old man dies in his sleep, without there being anything wrong with him aside from his advanced age and the natural degradation of his body by that point, was he really “murdered” by God at this point? It’s ludicrous to attach that word, and then accuse me of playing games of semantics, as if the words “murder” and “kill” have identical meanings.

    And no, I have no problem acknowledging that my understanding of God’s every plan and thought is beyond me. Again, He is the Supreme Being and if the thought processes of mere people can be perplexing, how much more so God’s? There is much about such that can only be dealt with through speculation, and that does not constitute a retreat or a deficiency in the apologist at all. Rather, such accusations are just another example of your childishness.

    To say that God does not murder when he takes a life, or acts immorally at all, is not more than saying how it is. That God has absolute authority to act as He sees fit is appropriate given His ultimate status as God over all things. A parent isn’t acting immorally in reserving the right to certain privileges and actions that he does not allow for his child. Do you allow your child a shot and beer because you do, and if not, are you acting immorally because you do not permit your child what you do yourself? You are that child in demanding that God act in a manner that YOU perceive to be immoral because you are told you are not permitted to act that way as well.

    • R. Nash says:

      Marshall, where exactly did anyone use the example of a 92 year old man?

      What is your gods plan in allowing for/creating 1/3 of all children, and then aborting them?

      If you claim you do not know, would you care to further speculate on why your god could make us in his image, but produce a process that allows for 1/3 of all pregnancies to end via miscarriage?

  22. brycelancaster says:

    “You hadn’t ought make matter-of-fact statements without so much as a scintilla of evidence.”

    It’s precisely due to the lack of evidence that I make bold statements. I make a bold statement that flying unicorns don’t exist and I stand by that. Likewise, I make a bold statement that the God you believe in does not exist, and it’s beyond easy to stand by that.

    And as for homosexuals making great prolifers… we’re pretty good about not interfering in other people’s lives. If a woman decides to get an abortion, that is her choice and only affects HER. The argument that life begins at conception is inherently religious. Law dictates, (correctly), that life begins when we gain consciousness. And yes, we do lose our rights when we lose consciousness. That’s why it’s legal to pull somebody off of life support if they’re going to be a vegetable for the rest of their life.

  23. Good people do not disagree on this issue. Only monsters tell lies about consciousness and “empty vessels” to justify the execution of the innocent.

    http://blogs.christianpost.com/liberty/the-face-that-changes-everything-3903/

  24. It is really self-refuting to say “God does not exist.” Essentially what Bryce is saying is that “I have infinite knowledge of the entire universe, and can be everywhere at the same time to know that there is no one with infinite knowledge of the entire universe that can be everywhere at the same time.”

  25. It’s precisely due to the lack of evidence that I make bold statements. I make a bold statement that flying unicorns don’t exist and I stand by that. Likewise, I make a bold statement that the God you believe in does not exist, and it’s beyond easy to stand by that.

    Your problem, bryce, is an inability to recognize the hyperbolic nature of your own comments. There is obviously plenty of evidence for the existence of Christ, plenty of evidence for the miracles attributed to Christ, and plenty of evidence against the naturalistic creation of the Earth.

    And as for homosexuals making great prolifers… we’re pretty good about not interfering in other people’s lives. If a woman decides to get an abortion, that is her choice and only affects HER.

    Since when is murder a private act?

    The argument that life begins at conception is inherently religious.

    No, it isn’t.

    Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primoridum, of a human being.

    Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p. 2

    Let’s look at another.

    The development of a human begins with fertilization a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p.3

    Satisified? No? Okay.

    Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.

    Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New Yorkl McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3

    Okay, so we’ve established…Wait. What’s that you say? You STILL don’t believe me? Okay.

    Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.

    O’Rahilly, Ronan and Muler, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, p. 8.

    Okay, so now…Ugh. How many more do you want?

    Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.

    Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1

    If that isn’t enough, I could go on. Why? Because no credible doctor, embryologist, biologist, or informed person would dispute the immutable fact that life begins at conception. But just so we’re absolutely clear.

    Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard Medical School.

    It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.

    Another?

    Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris

    After fertilization has taken place, a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion; it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.

    Another?

    Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic

    By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.

    Another?

    Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School

    The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception.

    Another?

    Professor Ashley Montague, Geneticist

    The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.

    Another?

    Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania.

    I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life.

    The facts are clear, but so too should the logic be. Think about it. Conception begins a lifelong developmental process that doesn’t end until death. It’s not a magical leap at different points, but a linear process of development. The zygote (first cell) is undeniably human and distinct from any other person in all of human history. That person’s hair color, eye color, and much of its personality is set in stone the moment conception occurs. Like all human beings, it is unique to itself, and if left alone, it’s life will be a continual process of development that proceeds through birth, chldhood, puberty, adolescence, adulthood, aging, and finally death. Yes, the complete human life.

    So, if you want to debate abortion, let’s do it. But keep in mind, you are not entitled to your own facts.

    Law dictates, (correctly), that life begins when we gain consciousness.

    The law doesn’t say that at all. Read Roe v. Wade. The entire basis of that opinion was the court’s supposed inability to define when life begins. Secondly, if the law truly dictated such a thing (it doesn’t), why are there Fetal Homicide Laws?

    And yes, we do lose our rights when we lose consciousness.

    No, we don’t.The only time people are pulled off life-support is when they’re legally declared dead, aka, brain dead. You simply have no clue what you’re talking about, like most liberals. Also, the unborn child currently developing cannot be considered brain dead in any sense, so don’t bother with that argument.

  26. DogTags,

    My favorite part of that article:

    We are constantly subjected to bromides and trite arguments that good people disagree on this issue. Saying “good people disagree on abortion” is meant to keep the debate civilized. Meanwhile, children are butchered by doctors with their mothers’ permission or left to die in a linen closet while we have our civilized debate.

    Smacks of truth.

  27. bryce,

    Since I know you’re going to come back with casuistry, let me expound on my argument.

    Your contention that “life begins at conception is a religious argument” has been thoroughly debunked. So let me present some legal opinions refuting your contention that the “[l]aw dictates, (correctly), that life begins when we gain consciousness.” The law simply doesn’t say that.

    Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. He wrote that the Court “need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.”

    Secondly, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, signed into law in 2004, extends personhood to unborn children, stating “[I]f the person engaging in the conduct [which causes the death] thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.”

    So, the law recognizes the humanity, the personhood, of unborn children. But the law is also inconsistent and allows abortion. This must change.

    Additionally, the law certainly doesn’t view things the way you do. Your “functional view of persons” argument is stupid on its face. Personhood, as I’ve shown, simply isn’t dependent on abilities. People lose the ability to do certain things every single day, but we don’t strip them of their rights, of their humanity. We don’t strip comatose people of their humanity; we don’t strip mentally disabled people of their humanity; and, hell, we don’t even strip dead people of their humanity. Their wishes (Last Will & Testament) are respected by the law simply because of their humanity.

    So, you can take this functional view of personhood back to Nazi Germany, if you please. You and other anti-lifers want human worth to be dependent on developmental ability and that is disgusting, and totally inconsistent with the law, whether you realize it or not.

    Perhaps instead of “clubbing” you’ll consider familiarizing yourself with the nuances of an issue before commenting on it – so matter-of-factly.

  28. “Marshall, where exactly did anyone use the example of a 92 year old man?”

    In my response to you. Surely you saw it. I did so to provide an example of the other end of the life spectrum whereby someone dies without a clear reason for the rest of us to understand. In the case of the old guy, we simply say, “old age” or “his time had come”. But the fact is that there is an actual reason for his passing which “old age” is the easiest way to say it. “Old age” is the euphemism for the natural death the old guy experienced. But he wasn’t murdered by anyone, not even God.

    YOU, however, would suggest that a miscarriage is God murdering an unborn child. It is a natural death with a biological reason behind it, just as with the 92 year old man who dies in his sleep. Your use of the word “murder” applied to deaths by natural, or even accidental causes is just a way to pretend you see flaws in the idea of God, as well as a self-satisfying condescension toward believers who just can’t, in your desperation, see the “immorality” of God’s behavior. Childishness.

    “What is your gods plan in allowing for/creating 1/3 of all children, and then aborting them?”

    Again, there are many things about which we can only speculate. In this case, I would say the purpose is to confound those who desperately want to believe that He doesn’t exist. Here, also, we again see you purposely misapplying a word as if you’re interested in serious debate.

    “… would you care to further speculate on why your god could make us in his image, but produce a process that allows for 1/3 of all pregnancies to end via miscarriage?”

    Is this redundancy on your part? It seems as if you asked the same question twice. Was the first having to do with the human act of aborting one’s own child? It wasn’t clear.

    • R. Nash says:

      Marshall,

      You are in fact trying to co-opt the use of the words biological and natural and it reeks of cherry picking.

      How exactly is it “natural” for your god to make a human being, the miracle known as human life, and then you come along and interpret a seemingly negative outcome, as “natural”? Where exactly does the awesome omnipotence and total omnipresence of your god begin and end? We need you to explain why exactly your god has made us so imperfect. Specifically why so many women are unable to carry a fetus to term. How is that perfection in his image?

      I see that you are willing to “speculate” when it comes to dismissing my query, but have exactly nothing to add when it comes to speculating why your god seems to be addicted to miscarriages? Is he all powerful or not? This seems imperfect to me. It seems not omniscient.

      How can you so willingly and supposedly knowingly have so much to say about your god and his purpose, but have no remotely rational explanation for this chasm? I mean if you are going to tell me about nature and biology whilst using a supernatural explanation to explain away what you don’t know, just come out and say that you are making a leap of faith.

  29. Terrance,

    Nicely done.

  30. brycelancaster says:

    Thanks for telling me I belong in Nazi Germany with my pro-choice views, because I’m totally trying to force people into doing what I want them to.

    The rights of the mother supersedes the rights of the infant. Nobody should be forced to spend nine months of their life under the duress of pregnancy and be forced to give birth to a child that they don’t want.

    And as for the clubbing statement… nice. I do enjoy a good grinding session every now and then. Especially if the guy is latino. Woof!

  31. brycelancaster says:

    It’s degrading to consider an expanding cluster of cells to be of equal importance of a actual living, breathing, functioning human being.

    And almost comical to say that the cluster of cells should be considered equal under the law as a living, breathing man, woman, or child. (lets just hope it isn’t Gay though, it’ll get a few less of those rights)

  32. Nash,

    The only thing that reeks here is your attempts to belittle people of faith and their God. It seems clear that the only possibility of God redeeming Himself in your eyes is to grant everyone eternal life on earth with no possibility of harm, illness or defect. Since it’s not likely, you hold Him as unworthy of your regard. It must keep Him up nights.

    “We need you to explain why exactly your god has made us so imperfect.”

    I’m sorry. I thought you knew all about Christianity and Christianity’s God. If you did, you would know that He didn’t make us imperfect. Perhaps you should study Scripture for a bit.

    Notice, however, that the reasons for miscarriages vary, some of which are:

    Drug and alcohol abuse
    Exposure to environmental toxins
    Hormone problems
    Infection
    Obesity
    Physical problems with the mother’s reproductive organs
    Problem with the body’s immune response
    Serious body-wide (systemic) diseases in the mother (such as uncontrolled diabetes)
    Smoking

    I can see, oh, perhaps one or two, that can be altered to decrease the chances of miscarriage. Can you? If someone smokes or does drugs or is obese, is that God murdering the child or more like the mother causing the death of her child?

    Yet still, one cannot always know just how exposed they may be to environmental toxins, nor can one always know when one suffers from hormonal problems or issues with one’s reproductive organs, or immune response. I guess perhaps one might be able to be tested before engaging in the act that is meant to result in pregnancy. That would also reduce the percentages a bit, wouldn’t ya think? But if not, is that God’s fault?

    To you, I’m sure it is.

    If God was truly “addicted to miscarriages”, I’m sure there would be lots more than there is now.

    “How can you so willingly and supposedly knowingly have so much to say about your god and his purpose…”

    That’s funny. I was certain I made clear that we cannot be certain of God’s purpose. Too bad He didn’t make your powers of comprehension perfect. I have no problem admitting that I trust God as far as so many things I do not or cannot know. Why would you think I’d be afraid to say so? I trust that as He is the Supreme Being, He isn’t totally dim and likely to have all the bases covered. If you need to know exactly how in order to put your own weak faith in Him, that’s your problem. Good luck with that. I’ll say a prayer for you.

  33. Bryce,

    Your pro-abortion views are indeed very Nazi-like considering they had a very similar view of the worthiness of Jewish lives. The parallel is striking whether you see it or not.

    If a man or woman truly does not want to have a child, they should not participate in the very act designed to produce one. A child’s right to live far supersedes the fictitious “right” to engage in intercourse.

    “It’s degrading to consider an expanding cluster of cells to be of equal importance of a actual living, breathing, functioning human being.”

    What an idiot. The “cluster of cells” to which you refer IS an actual living, breathing, functioning human being. It clearly is alive before it is aborted. It uses oxygen for its survival even before its lungs are fully developed. AND it functions as it every human being done when at that particular stage of development. What’s truly degrading to you is to hold that heinous position regarding fellow human beings and wanting to grind with another man. It’s also degrading to you to pretend you give a flying rat’s ass about any “cluster of cells” even if it IS “gay”. We don’t pretend to care about any unborn child because they are all worthy of respect and dignity. Not so sure about you, however.

  34. Thanks for telling me I belong in Nazi Germany with my pro-choice views, because I’m totally trying to force people into doing what I want them to.

    First, your anti-life views belong in Nazi Germany because of their fealty to developmental ability. Second, as a homosexual activist, you are trying to force people to accept your lifestyle and relationships.

    The rights of the mother supersedes the rights of the infant.

    No, they don’t. If I invite someone into my home (property), I don’t have the right to kill them unless they pose some danger to me. Why? Because the right to life is first and foremost of all rights. Without it we have no basis upon which to demand any other right, including the right of bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy, however, is not absolute. We don’t have the right to commit suicide, consume illegal drugs, or sell our organs for profit. Quite simply, there is no legal right to do with your body what you wish.

    Though, if you’re willing to stick by this argument (bodily autonomy), then surely you must support abortion at any time during the pregnancy, including a mere five-minutes before birth. It’s still the woman’s body, regardless. So are you willing to support such a thing?

    By the way, earlier you said that life begins (thus deserving of protection) at the point of consciousness (occurring in the womb), but now you’re claiming that doesn’t matter. Well, which is it? It’s either Life of Child or Woman’s Bodily Autonomy. You cannot have both at the same time.

    Nobody should be forced to spend nine months of their life under the duress of pregnancy and be forced to give birth to a child that they don’t want.

    Last time I checked, the sole biological (keyword) purpose of sex was reproduction. How can a woman claim to be forced into a pregnancy when pregnancy is the natural result of the act? It’s not an unintended consequence.

    (Since you’re such a fan of the law, perhaps you might look up the legal concept of tacit consent.)

    You’ll mention rape, obviously. But did you know that rape resulting in pregnancy occurs less than one-percent of the time? It’d be foolish, I suggest, to use rape as though it’s legitimate justification for the other 99% of abortions.

    It’s degrading to consider an expanding cluster of cells to be of equal importance of a actual living, breathing, functioning human being.

    We’re all a cluster of cells. The difference is developmental ability, and obviously unborn children are significantly less developed than an adult human being. But so is a newborn significantly less developed. Does this mean an adult’s life is worth more? No, it doesn’t. Why? Because the value of an individual human life is not tied to developmental ability. The value of an individual human life is tied to its inherent nature as a human being. Nothing more, nothing less.

  35. It’s also degrading to you to pretend you give a flying rat’s ass about any “cluster of cells” even if it IS “gay”. We don’t pretend to care about any unborn child because they are all worthy of respect and dignity. Not so sure about you, however.

    Conservatives not only hate gay people, but African-Americans, Hispanics, and Women. Yet we hateful people still protest abortion even though the majority of aborted children are either African-American or Hispanic, and though Female Fetuses are most likely to die on the basis of Sex-Selective Abortion…

    Yes, Marshal, we’re a hateful bunch of bastards. Aren’t we?

  36. Yeah. That’s what I do all day. Just hate, hate, hate…abortion.

    • As per usual, the dogmatic and self righteous absolution that only the Abrahamic faiths seem to be able to provide, has boiled down to using terms like Nazi to describe others who don’t agree with you. Your dogmatic diatribe and arrogance have not one the day. No conversions here……again. How many people do you convince with this holy dogma? Any percentages?

      I know you are capable of a better quality of discourse Terrance, marshall not so much.

      Terrance you probably already know that not only was the Catholic church complicit with Hitler under duress of war, Hitler was a christian, go ahead and read Mein Kampf…..or don’t, since it upends your hollow Nazi innuendo.

      Here’s a question: What, if anything beyond making your point known to others online, and voting, are any of you ready and willing to do to force women to have babies?

      I wonder when the rhetoric gets this zealous and pointed if any of you support or celebrate the actions of those who shoot abortion doctors or firebomb clinics, you know, terrorism.

  37. brycelancaster says:

    The life of the child AND the woman’s right to autonomy go hand in hand. It’s why a woman loses the right to an abortion after the child becomes living, because it is no longer just her autonomy. (Which answers your absurd question on why I don’t believe abortion should be legal right before birth).

    A cluster of cells with the potential to become a human being is not the same, nor even close, to the same thing as an actual baby with the ability to think, feel, and communicate on a rudimentary level. A person with the brain activity of a five week old fetus is considered legally dead, why are you attempting to make the argument that a five week old fetus should then be considered alive?

    “The value of an individual human life is tied to its inherent nature as a human being.”

    ^ That appears to be the crux of the anti-choice movement. Which I agree with, the value of life is tied to our nature of being human beings. But fetus’s in the first trimester aren’t human beings. They’re in the process of becoming human beings, but they don’t gain those rights until they become human beings.

    And as for calling my arguments similar to one Nazi’s used… well, if you guys want to make yourselves seem like even bigger extremists, be my guest. I’m not the one attempting to force an entire population into my way of thinking. To be honest, I hate abortions. I want to see the number drop drastically. That’s why I’m an advocate for safe sex education in schools. But I also know that there’s a vast majority of reasons for pregnancy, not just rape/incest (only 1%) and then irresponsibility on the mothers part. i don’t expect a sixteen year girl who made one mistake be forced to become a social outcast, carry extreme stress on her body, and undergo the process of childbirth all for the sake of something which is not human yet. That’s beyond cruel. The right to privacy to our own body supersedes the “rights” of a fetus in the first trimester because the fetus does not have rights. It’s not just based on developmental ability, (although that is a big part), but also on brain activity and function. It’s why we lose our rights when we become brain dead.

    I obviously won’t change any of your minds, because those who are set in their ways tend to stay set in their ways. I do have to admit, I feel sorry that you harbor so much anger towards the idea of abortions. I feel sad that abortions are necessary, but I’d feel a lot worse if women were forced to get back alley abortions just to survive in a world where pregnancy can destroy lives. It would be like prohibition all over again. And i know the argument you’re going to make to that statement… “So because people are going to do bad things anyway, we should just make everything legal?” No, we shouldn’t make cocaine and meth legal just because people already do it. But when criminalizing a certain activity, such as drinking or abortion, leads to more deaths than regulating it, then legalizing it IS the best choice. Legalizing cocaine or meth would not lead to less deaths, they are deadly substances where it’s all too easy to overdose and no amount of legalization would change that. But regulating abortion and alcohol leads to significantly less deaths and pain.

    This was a fun conversation. Talking to you guys helps remind me that there’s still a lot of work to do in the world, and that the fight for women’s reproductive rights and autonomy is still far from over. (And before calling me a feminist, just know that I’m a Mens Rights Activist as well. I have serious problems with the modern day feminist movement because it’s turned more into an Anti-Men crusade, but I support the feminist argument of abortion). I do have hope that my generation, (millennial’s), will help fix any mistakes that our predecessors make today in regards to social issues, on which conservatives have traditionally, (and still do), lag very far behind.

    Thanks for the fun times you guys. :)

    • Good news bryce! Its a medical fact that at the moment of conception a new human life begins. Its alive immediately and it is a genetically complete human being. Guess youre prolife now, huh.

  38. The life of the child AND the woman’s right to autonomy go hand in hand. It’s why a woman loses the right to an abortion after the child becomes living, because it is no longer just her autonomy. (Which answers your absurd question on why I don’t believe abortion should be legal right before birth).

    First of all, the child “becomes living” at the moment of conception, and you must agree with this fact. You said in your last reply, “The rights of the mother supersedes the rights of the infant.” Is it common to refer to “non-living” beings as “infants”?

    Like I said, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue the right of absolute bodily autonomy on one hand, and then devise some situation which strips her of this right on the other hand. It’s either one or the other.

    A cluster of cells with the potential to become a human being is not the same, nor even close, to the same thing as an actual baby with the ability to think, feel, and communicate on a rudimentary level.

    Such idiotic remarks deftly illustrate the complete ignorance of anti-lifers. Does this look like a ‘cluster of cells’ in your mind, or an actual baby? I wrote that piece just to show how disingenuous anti-lifers truly are. You people don’t give a damn about the life of the unborn child, otherwise you’d be advocating a change to the law that only legalizes the abortion of a “cluster of cells.”

    Regardless, that “cluster of cells” fits the definition of human being. It may not be the same thing as an “actual baby,” but neither is an “actual baby” the same thing as an adult. The difference, as I have explained numerous times, is developmental ability, and if you can’t see the problem with human worth being tied to ability, then you are too far gone to be helped.

    A person with the brain activity of a five week old fetus is considered legally dead, why are you attempting to make the argument that a five week old fetus should then be considered alive?

    People considered “legally brain dead” are only sustained with modern medicine, and there is no expectation they will live. Fetuses, on the other hand, are engaged in a continual, linear process of development, whereby brain activity increases periodically, with the expectation they will live. It’s quite simply asinine to compare the two situations and then attempt to draw some anti-life conclusion.

    Furthermore, your argument forces one to believe that “personhood” and “worth” are spontaneous matters. The fetus is nothing but a clump of cells one day, unworthy of legal protection, and then suddenly a human being the next day. Not only stupid, but at odds with the medical facts.

    Besides, like I stated previously, not even dead people lose their humanity, their inherent worth as human beings. We have laws governing the proper treatment of the dead, and laws which guard their last wishes. Why? Because of their inherent nature as human beings and not some asinine notion of brain activity.

    That appears to be the crux of the anti-choice movement. Which I agree with, the value of life is tied to our nature of being human beings. But fetus’s in the first trimester aren’t human beings.

    Yes, they are. I’ve proven it with medical textbooks and testimony from medical doctors, geneticists, and embryologists. You cannot dispute the medical facts no matter how hard you try. As one doctor said,After fertilization has taken place, a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion; it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.

    II’m not the one attempting to force an entire population into my way of thinking.

    Yes, you are. Regardless, would abolitionists be considered Nazi-sque in your mind for protesting slavery? Like pro-lifers, they tried to “force” an entire population into their way of thinking, that African-Americans were human beings worthy of the same legal protections as white people.

    I hate abortions.

    Why? It’s just a clump of cells, remember?

    i don’t expect a sixteen year girl who made one mistake be forced to become a social outcast, carry extreme stress on her body, and undergo the process of childbirth all for the sake of something which is not human yet. That’s beyond cruel.

    First, their are consequences to our actions and a 16-year-old is old enough to know that if she’s old enough to know about sex. Secondly, children can scarcely be considered a consequence. Lastly, the unborn child is a human being, as I’ve proven.

    The right to privacy to our own body supersedes the “rights” of a fetus in the first trimester because the fetus does not have rights.

    The Unborn Victims of Violence Act says fetuses have rights, as I’ve shown. You don’t follow along very well, do you?

    In any event, if it can be established that life begins in the first trimester (it begins at conception), then elective abortion would result in murder, and since murder is not a private act, your argument fails.

    The remainder of your reply is a rehash of things dismantled above. And talking to you reminds me of how senseless the generation below mine has become. You guys are brainwashed.

  39. Nash,

    Terrance you probably already know that not only was the Catholic church complicit with Hitler under duress of war, Hitler was a christian, go ahead and read Mein Kampf.

    Hitler was not a Christian, as private conversations published and recorded prove. Hitler used the Christian identity of the German people to increase his own popularity. He was in no sense a Christian.

    You should check out the Goebbels Diaries and Hitler’s Table Talk. For external sources, I recommend Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; W. W. Notron & Co; 2008 Edn; pp.295-297, among others.

    • R. Nash says:

      Did you just try to sell me your revisionist history of Hitler via Wikipedia? Hmmm……Sorry but less than 2 pages from Kershaw, does not a fact make. Additionally, Table Talk is written by 3 other men, not by Hitler. Hitlers relationships to the clerical hierarchy of bishops, cardinals etc, is not up for revision. I mean even the Church had to eventually come clean in the early 70’s about having gotten into bed with this lunatic.

      Please do tell us how you have arrived at the conclusion, after reading Mein Kampf, which I am sure you must have, that Hitler was anything but a christian. How do you come to such a supposition that he was in no sense a christian? Be specific.

      I notice that your going to continue using the term Nazi to define your enemies yet avoided any discussion about the Catholic church’s collusion with the Nazi’s…….aren’t you a Catholic? Hitler was raised and schooled as a Roman Catholic. Have you read John Cornwells work? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_Pope An intriguing work that seems to directly contradict the desperately perpetuated myth that Hitler was anything but a christian.

      Maybe you should have the facts before you talk out of turn?

      “He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home. Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings: “The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.” –Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.” – Adolf Hitler

      So again, not just a christian but a catholic one to boot.

  40. Nash,

    Sorry. I didn’t see your other questions until just now.

    Here’s a question: What, if anything beyond making your point known to others online, and voting, are any of you ready and willing to do to force women to have babies?

    I’ve spent time trying to convince abortion-seeking women to find alternatives. I’ve donated time, money, and items to Pregnancy Care Centers. I’ve protested outside abortion clinics. I’ve gathered signatures for a Personhood Amendment to the our State Constitution. I’ve tried to adopt a child from a woman who “couldn’t handle another one” (she changed her mind). But mostly, I spend time trying to convince people that abortion is wrong.

    I wonder when the rhetoric gets this zealous and pointed if any of you support or celebrate the actions of those who shoot abortion doctors or firebomb clinics, you know, terrorism.

    You see, people who shoot abortion doctors aren’t really pro-life; they’re anti-life. They believe they have the right to decide who lives and who dies, and that isn’t the way things ought to be. You don’t have that right. Nobody has that right.

    Would I care if Kermit Gosnell were beaten to death in prison? No. I wouldn’t shed a tear.

    Did I care when George Tiller was murdered? No. I didn’t shed a tear.

    Would I care if our local abortion doctor were murdered? No. I wouldn’t shed a tear.

    Is it wrong for me to feel that way? Absolutely. It’s a sin. But I can’t help it. Don’t you feel the same way, Nash, about child-molesters? Would you care if they were killed? If they were murdered? I doubt it.

    • R. Nash says:

      Terrance, how do you square the glaring contradiction by which you are unequally measuring life? You admit that it’s a sin, but it is also illogical. You are distilling your position down to emotions only. A life is a life……no?

      And the vitriol on this site is only 1 degree away from the “pro-life” terrorists, even if they too are hypocrites.

  41. Nash,

    I don’t believe I’m unequally measuring life. I draw a distinction between innocent and guilty life, something I’m sure you’ve heard from defenders of capital punishment.

    I don’t wish death on anyone, not abortion doctors, child-molesters, rapists, or anyone else. But I wouldn’t care if they were killed because I believe such people are self-evidently evil and cannot be helped. However, I do not support capital punishment because I hold that society must be better than the individual and their petty emotions, such as my own.

  42. Did you just try to sell me your revisionist history of Hitler via Wikipedia?

    No, I didn’t. I linked you to summaries of the Goebbels Diaries (a book) and Hitler’s Table Talk (another book). If you prefer, I can link you to Amazon.Com summaries. It’s up to you.

    I also cited a book written by a historian who uses several sources, including the two previously mentioned, to draw the conclusion that Hitler was not a Christian.

    Another excellent book is Inside Hitler’s Germany by Chris Mann and Matthew Hughes. And since I own the book, I’d be more than happy to scan the section which argues that Hitler was not a Christian, if you want.

    Additionally, Table Talk is written by 3 other men, not by Hitler. Hitlers relationships to the clerical hierarchy of bishops, cardinals etc, is not up for revision. I mean even the Church had to eventually come clean in the early 70′s about having gotten into bed with this lunatic.

    Is there some reason we shouldn’t believe the authors of Hitler’s Table Talk? Unlike you and me, they actually knew Hitler and spoke with the man. Why shouldn’t we believe them?

    You’re basically arguing that Hitler’s utilization of Catholic failures indicates theological agreement between the two. This is silly.

    Please do tell us how you have arrived at the conclusion, after reading Mein Kampf, which I am sure you must have, that Hitler was anything but a christian. How do you come to such a supposition that he was in no sense a christian? Be specific.

    I look at other sources, Nash. Mein Kampf is a single source that can be dismissed as propaganda. Hitler needed the support of the German people, who were largely Christian. He took advantage of their faithfulness. Nothing more, nothing less.

    I notice that your going to continue using the term Nazi to define your enemies…

    No. I said that tying human worth to ability is a Nazi idea – and it is.

    …yet avoided any discussion about the Catholic church’s collusion with the Nazi’s…….

    It’s a bit more nuanced than you think. Like I said, read Inside Hitler’s Germany.

    …aren’t you a Catholic?

    I was. Now I’m a Lutheran, Wisconsin Synod.

    Hitler was raised and schooled as a Roman Catholic.

    So were most people in Austria and Germany at that time.

    Have you read John Cornwells work?

    I’ve heard of it, but again, I can directly link you to five other historians who completely disagree and dismantle that work.

    Maybe you should have the facts before you talk out of turn?

    Heed your own advice.

    “He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home. Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings: “The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.” –Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.” – Adolf Hitler

    Merely an example of Hitler using the Christian identity of the German people to his advantage.

    • R. Nash says:

      John, you do realize that Table talk is based on 3 other peoples short hand of some specific conversations for the sake of posterity don’t you? It is not a book of his letters or conversations. It has 3 middlemen between Hitler and the reader. Hence the work is not trusted by a great many researchers nor used as a reference due to its inaccuracies.

      Terrance, Your arbitrary and emotionally drawn distinctions based upon guilt/innocence are still illogical. Isn’t it up to your god to castigate the one’s you feel are deserving of death? Is it not your job to simply pray for them only? Isn’t judgement left to the Almighty? I am not purposefully trying to drag this out but am often trying to tease this point out as most christians seem unable to specify why the death penalty is acceptable, yet the fetus is innocent and sacred. A clump of cells, whether in adult molester form or otherwise is still the jurisdiction of god, no?

      I also struggle with my feelings towards the dirtbags of society, and on most days I do not support the death penalty.

      “Mein Kampf is a single source that can be dismissed as propagand” How do you dismiss Mein kampf as mere propaganda? None of his contemporaries, nor any historians view it as such. How do you come to this conclusion?

      And I have looked and found no where in which the authors you have mentioned have dismissed Cornwells book on the incestuous relationship between Hitler and the Catholic Church. Do you have a link that shows otherwise?

      Last question: If I were to concede that Nazism and Hitler were not christian or christianity in any way, how would you contemplate the fact that Hitler was born and raised a Catholic and sought to join the clergy after going to catholic school?

      • Why would people, basically reporters, invent aspects of conversations? For what purpose? If anything the conversations would be “cleaned up” to make him look better, not worse. These people were in the room. They werent intended to be used as propaganda. They were for posterity, so tjey could have it to remember.

        Just because some dismiss it doesnt debunk it, especially given the rather benign purpose of the endeavor itself.

        • R. Nash says:

          Well John, I think that you would accept a few sentences from that “book” so as to alleviate your doctrine of faith from the immoral behavior of Hitler.

          So we are back to some type and quantity of bias.

          Ask yourself this: If Hitlers pillow talk shed an even worse light on his christian affections would you be arguing for its inclusion as a valid piece of unbiased evidence in the lengthy repertory that is already available? Does it, or would it qualify as relevant and objective in spite of it being in multiple forms of shorthand through multiple authors?

          Now I see how the history of the Bible’s endless authoring, revision, editing and redaction has not come to bother you at all. Is there any kind of evidence that doesn’t qualify as long as it supports a positive light on your worldview/religion?

  43. Nash,

    Hitler said,

    So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions.Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited by words like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.

    Hitler’s Table Talk.

    By the way, Hitler’s Table Talk is considered authentic by nearly every historian under the sun. Only people with a fanatical hatred of Christianity dispute its authenticity. These people simply aren’t satisfied with the atrocities Christians did commit. they want to embellish and make things up. Fact is, Hitler’s Table Talk is not in dispute among most experts.

    Oh! Just so we’re absolutely clear: Hitler WAS NOT a Christian.

    • R. Nash says:

      Terrance,

      You do realize who wrote what you just cut and pasted don’t you? If you don’t know who wrote it, you should find out.

      “By the way, Hitler’s Table Talk is considered authentic by nearly every historian under the sun. Only people with a fanatical hatred of Christianity dispute its authenticit”.

      This is an absurdly large and gross generalization.”Nearly every historian under the sun”? I think not. Here is a reference from Wikipedia page on the book:

      -Although considered authentic, contentious issues remain over particular aspects of the work, including the reliability of particular translated statements within the French and English editions,[5] the questionable manner in which Martin Bormann may have edited his notes,[11][14][15] and disputes over which edition is most reliable.[5][6] As a result, a high level of critical awareness of its potential drawbacks as a source is advisable when using Table Talk.[16][17][18].

      One of those footnotes is from Kershaw himself. So you have Kershaw seemingly, out of someone’s context talking out of both sides of his mouth. Or something else.

      I wonder how it is that you will accept/trust third person, short hand, specific extracts of Hitlers last 2.5 years, and not his own 2 volume treatise which is not in short hand nor does it have any middlemen. Could it be bias?

  44. Nash,

    Your criticism of Hitler’s Table Talk is asinine and illogical, as John pointed out. So, I’ll just address your other comments.

    Terrance, Your arbitrary and emotionally drawn distinctions based upon guilt/innocence are still illogical.

    Since when is human emotional always logical?

    I am not purposefully trying to drag this out but am often trying to tease this point out as most christians seem unable to specify why the death penalty is acceptable, yet the fetus is innocent and sacred.

    Because they draw a distinction between innocence and guilt, which itself is logical. We all recognize that it’s wrong to lock innocent people in jail, and capital punishment defenders simply take it to the next step: it’s wrong to kill innocent people, but not people guilty of certain crimes.

    To me, that’s the way they look at it. Personally, I don’t support capital punishment so I’m not interested in arguing its merit or the logic behind it.

    A clump of cells, whether in adult molester form or otherwise is still the jurisdiction of god, no?

    Yes. But like you, I struggle with human emotion and sometimes demand human retribution. It’s the only type of retribution we’re capable of, and we want it because we’re imperfect.

    By the way, becoming a Christian doesn’t automatically exempt you from the human condition.

    Last question: If I were to concede that Nazism and Hitler were not christian or christianity in any way, how would you contemplate the fact that Hitler was born and raised a Catholic and sought to join the clergy after going to catholic school?

    The Catholic Church was a powerful organization, perfect for megalomaniacs like Hitler.

    Lastly, I’m able to dismiss Mein Kampf and Cromwell because of all the other sources, including Hitler’s Table Talk, which themselves dismiss them.

    • R. Nash says:

      Your reasoning, if I use the word liberally, for dismissing Mein Kampf is asinine and illogical. You gave no legitimate reasons.
      ” Lastly, I’m able to dismiss Mein Kampf and Cromwell because of all the other sources, including Hitler’s Table Talk, which themselves dismiss them”.

      All of what other sources? You provided less than 2 pages from one book, whose author I might add is one of the footnotes in the criticism paste from above. And to boot you are treating Table Talk as if it were some collection of anti-christian tomes. It isn’t. It has a few sentences in the whole of the book.

      Pure, unadulterated cognitive dissonance, with a ton of bias and irrational desperate gibberish in between.

      You made up the assertion that it was propaganda, yet can provide nothing to back that up. Even Kershaw doesn’t consider Mein Kampf propaganda. Further, Table talk has no author, so if you plan to try and include it in your ever larger generalizations, it might fly with your fellow indoctrinated flock, or those who are rookies, but it will sway no one who has read the material.

      Lastly the Nazi political party, which numbered in the millions (3-5.5 mil), annually registered as christians, long after Mein Kampf was published. These records are readily available and reflect the only dominate religion of the party right through late 44. The records are gone after that. Care to dismiss this fact as well?

  45. You do realize who wrote what you just cut and pasted don’t you? If you don’t know who wrote it, you should find out.

    I copied it from Hitler’s Table Talk, hence the reason I put it in quotes and linked to it.

    This is an absurdly large and gross generalization.”Nearly every historian under the sun”? I think not. Here is a reference from Wikipedia page on the book:

    -Although considered authentic, contentious issues remain over particular aspects of the work, including the reliability of particular translated statements within the French and English editions,[5] the questionable manner in which Martin Bormann may have edited his notes,[11][14][15] and disputes over which edition is most reliable.[5][6] As a result, a high level of critical awareness of its potential drawbacks as a source is advisable when using Table Talk.[16][17][18].

    It’s hyperbole, Nash, used to illustrate the absurdity of dismissing it for apparently no reason other than it not jiving with preconceived notions. And like I said, it’s considered authentic. And fortunately for me, I didn’t use it as the only source, did I? No, I didn’t.

    One of those footnotes is from Kershaw himself. So you have Kershaw seemingly, out of someone’s context talking out of both sides of his mouth. Or something else.

    Kershaw uses it in his book as one source among many to draw a conclusion. He recognizes, as I do, it’s “controversial status,” and so doesn’t depend on it. But rest assured, there’s no real reason to dispute its authenticity.

    I wonder how it is that you will accept/trust third person, short hand, specific extracts of Hitlers last 2.5 years, and not his own 2 volume treatise which is not in short hand nor does it have any middlemen. Could it be bias?

    Hitler slaughtered Jews for being Jews, disabled people for being disabled, and waged a war that snuffed another 50 – 70 million lives out of existence, and you think Hitler is above lying about his theological persuasion? Ridiculous.

    Your fanatical hatred of Christianity has blinded you.

    • R. Nash says:

      This is an absurdly large and gross generalization.”Nearly every historian under the sun”? I think not. Here is a reference from Wikipedia page on the book:
      -Although considered authentic, contentious issues remain over particular aspects of the work, including the reliability of particular translated statements within the French and English editions,[5] the questionable manner in which Martin Bormann may have edited his notes,[11][14][15] and disputes over which edition is most reliable.[5][6] As a result, a high level of critical awareness of its potential drawbacks as a source is advisable when using Table Talk.[16][17][18].

      “It’s hyperbole, Nash, used to illustrate the absurdity of dismissing it for apparently no reason other than it not jiving with preconceived notions. And like I said, it’s considered authentic. And fortunately for me, I didn’t use it as the only source, did I? No, I didn’t”.

      What is hyperbole? How is it hyperbolic? Please be specific.You are skirting the issue Terrance. Who is disputing its authenticity? Don’t move the goal posts. And just so your’e aware, even if you use lots and lots of sources, context and accuracy still remain relevant. Kershaws use in his reference list of Table Talk was not about distancing Hitlers close proximity to christianity, was it? Table Talk covers a wealth of other things doesn’t it? Kershaws book is not about distancing Hitler from christianity is it? Nope. All redundant questions. I guess that’s why this exact subject occupies less than 2 pages from his book…So when you attempt to add up all of your sources to this end, it comes of as desperately dishonest.

      “Kershaw uses it in his book as one source among many to draw a conclusion. He recognizes, as I do, it’s “controversial status,” and so doesn’t depend on it. But rest assured, there’s no real reason to dispute its authenticity”.

      Again, who mentioned authenticity? Not me. So Kershaw now recognizes its controversial status?!?!?!?! Exactly! Then why do you take the few sentences in it that sum up your position as holy? Or perfect, while dismissing the wealth of evidence against your few sentences? Your just being ridiculously stubborn.

      I wonder how it is that you will accept/trust third person, short hand, specific extracts of Hitlers last 2.5 years, and not his own 2 volume treatise which is not in short hand nor does it have any middlemen. Could it be bias?

      “Hitler slaughtered Jews for being Jews, disabled people for being disabled, and waged a war that snuffed another 50 – 70 million lives out of existence, and you think Hitler is above lying about his theological persuasion? Ridiculous.
      Your fanatical hatred of Christianity has blinded you”. — Your deferring to emotional gray areas now that have no basis in fact. Moving the goal posts with red herrings is still moving the goal posts.

      I have asked 3 times for you to prove your presupposition regarding Mein Kampf as propaganda, do you have anything factual to back up this assertion or not?

  46. Nash,

    You realize, of course, that your entire argument hinges on a single historian, don’t you? You ignore Hitler’s Table Talk, the Goebbels Diaries, Speer’s Memoirs, and historians like Kershaw, Mann, Hughes, Fest, Bullock, Sharkey, Fischel, Dill, Wheaton, and Bendersky. Ridiculous.

    Since you’re also using Wikipedia, in Religious views of Adolf Hitler, it says, [I]t is generally believed by historians that Hitler’s long term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany.

    And yet you have the nerve to say I’m talking out of turn? Get a life, dude. Your hatred of Christianity has made you stupid.

  47. Nash,

    Lastly the Nazi political party, which numbered in the millions (3-5.5 mil), annually registered as christians, long after Mein Kampf was published. These records are readily available and reflect the only dominate religion of the party right through late 44. The records are gone after that. Care to dismiss this fact as well?

    You can dismiss it with Hitler’s own words, So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.

    There’s much cognitive dissonance going on here, I agree. But it’s coming from you. Everyone else is able to put Mein Kampf in and his relationship with the Church into perspective.

  48. All of what other sources? You provided less than 2 pages from one book, whose author I might add is one of the footnotes in the criticism paste from above. And to boot you are treating Table Talk as if it were some collection of anti-christian tomes. It isn’t. It has a few sentences in the whole of the book.

    I cited four things, Nash. Hitler’s Table Talk, Kershaw, Hughes and Mann, and Goebbels Diaries. I can cite many others, if you wish.

    Kershaw may recognize the disputed status of Hitler’s Table Talk, but that doesn’t mean he himself disputes it’s authenticity. Pity you’re not able to comprehend the difference.

    Kershaws use in his reference list of Table Talk was not about distancing Hitlers close proximity to christianity, was it? Table Talk covers a wealth of other things doesn’t it? Kershaws book is not about distancing Hitler from christianity is it? Nope. All redundant questions. I guess that’s why this exact subject occupies less than 2 pages from his book…So when you attempt to add up all of your sources to this end, it comes of as desperately dishonest.

    Have a look at this.

    Between 1941 and 1944, the period in which the Table Talk was being transcribed, a number of Hitler’s intimates cite him expressing negative views of Christianity, including Joseph Goebbels,[19] Albert Speer,[20] and Martin Bormann.[21] However Nazi General Gerhard Engel reports that in 1941 Hitler asserted, “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”[22] Similarly Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber reported that Hitler “undoubtedly lives in belief in God … He recognizes Christianity as the builder of western culture.” Ian Kershaw concluded that Hitler had deceived Faulhaber, noting his “evident ability to simulate, even to potentially critical church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity”.[23] The Table Talk indicates Hitler continued to wish for a united Christian Church of Germany for some time after 1937, in line with his earlier policy of uniting all the churches to bring them more firmly under Nazi control, so they would support Nazi policy and act as a unifying rather than divisive force in Germany, that had largely proven unsuccessful.[24][25] By 1940, however, it was public knowledge that Hitler had abandoned even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianity.[26] Instead, after 1938 Hitler began to publicly support a Nazified version of science, particularly social Darwinism, at the core of Nazi ideology in place of a religious one[27] – a development that is reflected in private in his increasingly hostile remarks towards religion in Table Talk.[28]

    What is hyperbole? How is it hyperbolic?

    My remark – “every historian under the sun” – was hyperbolic. I was illustrating the absurdity of rejecting Hitler’s Table Talk. You have no reason to reject it, other than it not jiving with the point you’re trying to make.

    Again, who mentioned authenticity? Not me. So Kershaw now recognizes its controversial status?!?!?!?! Exactly! Then why do you take the few sentences in it that sum up your position as holy? Or perfect, while dismissing the wealth of evidence against your few sentences? Your just being ridiculously stubborn.

    Are you kidding me? What wealth of evidence? You’ve cited a single historian. I’ve cited several. You’ve cited Mein Kampf. I’ve explained why it’s easily dismissed. You have NOTHING but speculation. Even the disputed status of Table Talk is based on speculation. There is no proof that it’s inauthentic. There is no proof Speer lied or Goebbels lied. No proof whatsoever. You have nothing of substance to back up your absurd belief. Nothing.

  49. I can’t believe you’re actually claiming that since Hitler’s rejection of Christianity consists of only a few lines in Hitler’s Table Talk, it’s okay to dismiss them. Such a ridiculous view reeks of bias.

    Hitler’s Words:

    National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.

    Why would Hitler lie in a private conversation such as this? No reason. Why would Hitler lie in Mein Kampf? To secure the support of a largely Christian nation. Is this really that difficult for you to understand? I suspect not. You’re only running around in circles so as to save that floundering mess of an argument with which you began.

    And what did Hitler write in Mein Kampf? Let’s have a look. The following are excerpts put together, taken from Chapters 6 and 12 of Mein Kampf.

    To whom should propaganda be addressed? It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses…The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself…its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… It’s soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result.”

    In public, Hitler claimed to be Christian. It was propaganda, a way to garner the support of a Christian populace. But in private, Hitler’s true colors are revealed.

    Hitler’s Words:

    Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.

    And.

    The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

    And.

    Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer…The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work for the purposes of personal exploitation…Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.

    And.

    Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery… When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.

    And.

    Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself…Pure Christianity– the Christianity of the catacombs– is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics.

    And.

    There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.

    And.

    It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.

    Why The Allies Won by Richard Overy is another book you should famiarlize yourself with. Overy writes on page 284:

    Italy was the home of Roman Catholicism; Germany’s population was one-third Catholic. Religion in both states lived in uneasy proximity with regimes that were strongly anti-clerical in outlook peddling new secular religions of their own. The same month that the Papacy condemned communism, a second encyclical was published, “Mit Brennender Sorge” (“With Burning Anxiety”), which condemned the Nazi persecution of the churches, Nazi racism and Mussolini’s deification of the state. Though Hitler often invoked God or Providence when he spoke, he was a thoroughly lapsed Catholic. Hitler considered Christianity incompatible with with the new National-Socialist age–it was “merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics”. He deplored the survival of religious observance among German ministers and generals, “little children who have learnt nothing else”. He regarded Christianity and communism as two sides of the same coin, sharing in St. Paul a common Jewish ancesteor. Hitler took the German nation as his religion. This did not make him a pagan as was widely believed, although paganism was practised under the Third Reich. The German Faith Movement, under the banner of the golden sun-wheel, with the “Song of the Goths” as their anthem, indulged in pagan festivals and invoked the gods of pre-Christian Germany. Heinrich Himmler’s SS generated a pagan theology, a pagan litury, even a pagan credo.

    Hitler’s toleration of Christianity and Catholicism was calculated. He didn’t want to alienate the German people or his Italian allies.

    Some more tidbits.

    A Hitler Youth Marching Song: 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.

    Thomas Schirrmacher Ph.D, author of the paged linked above, writes,

    In his in 1931 sermon “Political Messiahs”[20], the Protestant pastor Richard Karwehl demonstrated that National Socialism provided an antichristian alternative to every fundamental truth of the Christian faith.

    He goes on:

    The very conflict between Christianity and National Socialism emphasises the tragic failure of Christians to heed National Socialism’s religious aspect and to apprach it as more than a poltical system. The obligatory greeting “Heil Hitler” should have alerted them, but in spite of the explicit Biblical reference to Jesus Christ, “Neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12), countless believers thoughtlessly repeated the formula.

    Tell me more about how Hitler was a Christian, Nash…

    • R. Nash says:

      “I can’t believe you’re actually claiming that since Hitler’s rejection of Christianity consists of only a few lines in Hitler’s Table Talk, it’s okay to dismiss them. Such a ridiculous view reeks of bias”. -Are you fucking kidding me! Seriously dude! Bias?!?!?! You dismiss the 157 times that the mention of the christian god makes it into Mein Kampf, the collusion of the Catholic Church and the incestuous relationship between the two, right to the end, and I am being biased. Hitler would not even renounce his baptism or his membership in the Catholic Church……..but it’s all propaganda? You still have not provided any evidence that Mein Kampf was propaganda. Remember that just because you say it is doesn’t make it real anywhere but your own head.

      NOWHERE HAVE I DISMISSED TABLE TALK. NOWHERE. I raised the same exact questions that the other authors did. Questions that you were unaware of. Relevant questions.

      Yeah, lets play cut and paste:

      1) “The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler

      2) How Christianity was the catalyst of the Holocaust:

      Hitler’s anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Austria and Germany were majorly Christian during his time and they held the belief that Jews were an inferior status to Aryan Christians. The Christians blamed the Jews for the killing of Jesus. Jewish hatred did not actually spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, “On the Jews and their Lies,” Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War 2. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther constantly quoting his works and beliefs.

      Now, you must remember before Hitler rose to Chancellor of Germany the country was in a deep economic depression due to the Versailles treaty. The Versailles treaty demanded that Germans made financial reparations for the previous war and Germany simply was not self sufficient enough in order to pay the debt. Hitler was the leader that raised Germany out of the depression and brought them back to a world recognized power. Due to his annulment of the financial woes of the Germanic people he became their redeemer and they anointed him as the leader of the German Reich Christian Church in 1933. This placed him in power of the German Christian Socialist movement which legislates their political and religious agendas. It united all denominations, mainly the Protestant/Catholic and Lutheran people to instill faith in a national Christianity.

      How the Nazi Regime converted the people:

      a) In the 1920s, Hitler’s German Workers’ Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a “Programme” with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a “positive” Christianity: “We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession…”

      b) The Nazi regime started a youth movement which preached its agenda to impressionable children. Hitler backed up the notion that all people need faith and religious education: “By helping to raise man above the level of bestial vegetation, faith contributes in reality to the securing and safeguarding of his existence. Take away from present-day mankind its education-based, religious- dogmatic principles– or, practically speaking, ethical-moral principles– by abolishing this religious education, but without replacing it by an equivalent, and the result will be a grave shock to the foundations of their existence.” – Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

      c) The Nazi regime began to control schools insisting that Christianity was taught.

      d) The Nazi regime included anti-Semitic Christian writings in textbooks and they were not removed from Christian doctrines until 1961.

      e) The Nazi regime having full blown power over the people began to forcibly convert all its military.

      Nazi Belt Bucklef) The Nazi regime forced the German soldiers to wear religious symbols such as the swastika and they placed religious sayings on military gear. An example here is this German army belt buckle (I believe my Opa had one) which reads “Gott Mit Uns”. For those of you who do not speak German it is translated as “God With Us”.

      g) The German troops were often forced to get sprinkled with holy water and listen to a sermon by a Catholic priest before going out on a maneuver.

      h) The Nazis created a secret service called the “SS Reich” that would act as spies on the dealings of other citizens. If anyone was suspected of heresy (Going not only against the Socialist party but CHURCH DOCTRINE) they would be prosecuted.

      Quotes from Hitler:

      Hitler’s speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of their faith So they try to pin him on other theistic views. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveal the strength of his Christian feelings:

      “National Socialism is not a cult-movement– a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship… We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else– in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will– not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938. [Christians have always accused Hitler of believing in pagan cult mythology. What is written here clearly expresses his stand against cults.]

      “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 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism. Hitler wanted to form a society in which ALL people worshipped Jesus and considered any questioning of such to be heresy. The Holocaust was like a modern inquisition, killing all who did not accept Jesus. Though more Jews were killed then any other it should be noted that MANY ARYAN pagans and atheists were murdered for their non-belief in Christ.]

      Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:

      “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

      “Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition.” -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

      “The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.” -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)

      “With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people.” -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)

      “The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties– and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

      “…the fall of man in paradise has always been followed by his expulsion.” -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (See Genesis Chapter 3 where humankind is cast from Eden for their sins. Hitler compares this to the need to exterminate the Jews for their sin against Christ.)

      “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.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

      “The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (This quote is very interesting for it disperses the idea that Hitler raged war due to being an Aryan supremacist. He states quite clearly that he has a problem with Jews for their belief not race. That is why many German Jews died in WW2 regardless of their Aryan nationality.)

      “Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (Here Hitler is admitting that his war against the Jews were so successful because of his strong Christian Spirituality.)

      Germany was christian, the Workers Party and the Nazi Party were christian, Hitler was christian…..even if he later in 1944 he rejected it, he is still the by-product of christianity. The horrid mechanisms of that sociopath were already in place.

      Did you really cut and paste from Mein Kampf to try and prove your point?

      Please tell us more about Hitler’s absolute non christianity or christian background, upbringing or spiritual/military Programme doctrine…..

      Your unadulterated relationship with christianity has blinded you.

  50. Are you fucking kidding me! Seriously dude! Bias?!?!?! You dismiss the 157 times that the mention of the christian god makes it into Mein Kampf, the collusion of the Catholic Church and the incestuous relationship between the two, right to the end, and I am being biased.

    Yes! I’ve explained all that! It’s propaganda! Hitler couldn’t afford to lose the support of the German people so, yes, he cuddled up with the Catholic Church and claimed to be a Christian. All of this is explained in each of my references, and if you bothered to take your head out of your ass, you’d see that!

    Hitler would not even renounce his baptism or his membership in the Catholic Church……..but it’s all propaganda?

    WHY WOULD HE, YOU HALFWIT? He’d lose their support! He’d alienate a third of the German population! Why the hell would he do such a thing? He wouldn’t! He’d just go along with it, hoping that Christianity would “die a slow, natural death,” as he privately said!!!!

    You still have not provided any evidence that Mein Kampf was propaganda.

    Hitler’s private statements prove it was nothing but propaganda; statements by members of his inner circle prove it was nothing but propaganda; the 30-point National Reich Church Plan prove it was nothing but propaganda; the Hitler Youth anti-Christian chants and prayers prove it was nothing but propaganda; and the opinion of over a dozen historians, experts in this area, prove it’s nothing but propaganda. What do you have? The propaganda itself! Whoa!

    1) “The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler

    I explained this already. Or, aren’t you bothering to read my sources? HERE IT IS AGAIN!

    Ian Kershaw concluded that Hitler had deceived Faulhaber, noting his “evident ability to simulate, even to potentially critical church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity”.The Table Talk indicates Hitler continued to wish for a united Christian Church of Germany for some time after 1937, in line with his earlier policy of uniting all the churches to bring them more firmly under Nazi control, so they would support Nazi policy and act as a unifying rather than divisive force in Germany…

    Hitler simply needed their support! His own words, So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.

    Hitler answers these questions himself!

    2) How Christianity was the catalyst of the Holocaust:

    Yet again a question answer by one of my sources. Namely, Thomas Schirrmacher Ph.D, who writes,

    One of the main reasons why the German churches did not fight against Hitler’s rival religion and his Antisemitism was the low view of the Old Testament. Antisemitism is only possible where the Old Testament and especially Old Testament Law has been put aside. A love for the Old Testament and its Law is the best protection against Antisemitism. This is the major mistake of Hal Lindsay who compa­res Refor­med theology to National Socialism. National Socialism hated the Old Testament, while Reformed theology is surely much closer to the Old Testament than hyper-Dispensationalist Hal Lindsey. Alfred Rosenberg, Hit­ler’s agent for world view affairs, saw it the biggest mistake of Pro­testantism that Martin Luther translated and spread the Old Testa­ment and took an oath on the Old and New Testament before the Emperor Worms in 1520.[33] It should never be forgotten that, as a professor of Old Testament, Luther loved the Old Testament very much; also, that Luther’s oft condemned “anti-Semitism” was founded, not on racism but on his naïve disappointment that the Jews did not embrace Christianity once the errors of medieval Catholicism had been removed through Reformation teaching.[34] As for Pietism, it often based its preaching on conscience, not on the Law. Sadly, Pietism could easily live without the Old Testament, t­hough this was never admitted as such.

    Liberal theology hated the Old Testament, and professors of Old Testament have done everything to undermine the applica­tion of the Old Testament today, in spite of their massive studies of the text itself. Adolf von Harnack, a foremost liberal theologian and close ally of Emperor Wilhelm II, wrote a famous sentence in his book on Marcion, rejecting the Old Testament as the work of another god:

    “To reject the Old Testament in the second century was a mistake which the great Church refused rightfully; to keep it in the sixteenth century was a fate which the Reformation was not able to escape; but to conserve it after the nineteenth cen­tury as a canonical text in Prote­stantism, was the result of a religious and ecclesiastical paralysis.”[35]

    One of Hitler’s first actions was to force the churches to get rid of their Jewish-Christian members. So all Jewish members of all chur­ches were disciplined. This took place in churches where church disci­pline had nearly totally faded! This most gigantic act of church discipline in history took place quietly and without much protest. And it excommunicated Jews, that were baptized! Another reli­gion had taken over the churches.

    The theologians had prepared the way[36]. A typical example is Hans Schlemmer, who wrote a book against Alfred Rosenbergs main book, sometimes called ‘the Bible of National Socialism’. This meant risking his life! He writes, that Rosenberg went too far by dropping the Old Testament altogether. The Old Testament is for him ‘the Word of God’. But still he agrees with Rosenberg, writing:

    “It will be the task of theology to combine the submission to the Word of God with the perception which truthfulness de­mands, that the origin of the canon was a rather human event and that the Old Testa­ment contains not a few unpleasant things and that its place is far be­low the faith of the New Te­stament.”[37]

    It’s absolutely pointless to argue anything with you because you refuse to educate yourself. You refuse to read the sources I’ve cited because you’re blindly ideological.

    Everything you’re posting is nothing but public propaganda intended to keep the German people on his side until he could gain firm control. Once he did, all these “pro-Christian” policies were done away with and replaced with a new religion, National Socialism. For Christ’s literal sake, Ray Charles could see it!

    Quotes from Hitler:

    Yes…All propaganda already explained away.

    Did you really cut and paste from Mein Kampf to try and prove your point?

    I posted it to show Hitler’s use of propaganda as an effective tool in garnering support, and all those speeches you provide – all public, I might add – only prove the point.

    Secondly, I never claimed Hitler didn’t have a Christian background. Like most Austrians and Germans, he certainly did. However, as an adult, he hated Christianity, viewing it as the originally Bolshevism. But that didn’t stop him from using the Christian identify of the German people to gain support. People who, after the Treaty of Versailles humiliation, looked to God to provide a strong national leader. Hitler took advantage of this.

    It is generally believed by historians that Hitler’s long term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany. [1]

    Why is that, Nash? Because they’re stupid? Because they’re blinded by their devotion to Christianity? Why? Or, could it be they’re actually correct and, unlike you, are able to put Hitler’s public writings and statements into the correct perspective? I think so.

  51. Sometime in the near future – the next week, or so – I’ll create a post on Sifting Reality arguing the case. Be sure to look for it.

  52. Let’s assume Hitler and the Pope were homosexual lovers, totally supportive of one another, and that the Pope even made Hitler a Cardinal. This would not negate the comparison of pro-abortion supporters being Nazi-like in their low regard for human life based on subjective parameters of convenience. The Nazis did away with Jews, Gypsies, and others simply for not being Aryan. Jews were not considered equal or even fully human, as were other non-Aryan peoples. Pro-aborts do not regard people who have yet to reach a subjective point of development as persons. It is often said that comparisons to Nazis or Hitler is a white flag in a debate. But this does not take into account instances like this one where the comparison is spot on.

    Capital punishment is well within the Christian understanding of earthly justice, even though many Christians abhor the practice and fear the accidental execution of the innocent:

    “Whoever sheds human blood,
    by humans shall their blood be shed;
    for in the image of God
    has God made mankind.”
    -Gen 9:6

    I find it interesting the Nash is willing to accept the words of a mass murderer in order to make his irrelevant case regarding Hitler’s alleged faith, while dismissing other words of Hitler’s, as well as his mass murdering, that indicate he was no Christian. Is that an example of “quality of discourse”? Especially when it derails the conversation away from the Nazi-like pro-abortion view of the person-hood status of the unborn!

  53. Nash,

    Some more information for you.

    Baldur von Schirach, the Nazi leader of the German Youth Corps (Hitler Youth), said, “[T]he destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement.” [1]

    Also, Nazi leader Alfred Rosenberg said at the Nuremberg Congress of 1938, “I am absolutely clear in my own mind, and I think I can speak for the Fuhrer as well, that both the Catholic and Protestant churches must vanish from the life of our people.” [2]

    In 1942, the New York Times published an article entitled: Nazi State Church Plan Proposes To Oust Other Faiths and Ban Bible; NAZI CHURCH PLAN WOULD BAN BIBLE.

    The article discussed a 30-point plan devised by the Nazi’s to create a National Reich Church. Below are a few key things.

    1. The National Reich Church specifically demands the immediate turning over to its possession of all churches and chapels, to become national churches.

    5. The National Reich Church is immutably fixed in its one objective: TO DESTROY THAT CHRISTIAN BELIEF IMPORTED INTO GERMANY IN THE UNFORTUNATE YEAR 800, WHOSE TENETS CONFLICT WITH BOTH THE HEART AND MENTALITY OF THE GERMAN.

    13. The National Reich Church demands the immediate cessation of the printing of the Bible, as well as its dissemination, throughout the Reich and colonies. All Sunday papers with any religious content shall also be suppressed.

    14. The National Reich Church shall see that the importation of the Bible and other religious works into Reich territory is made impossible.

    15. The National Reich Church decrees that the most important document of all time-therefore the guiding document of the German people-is the book of our Fuhrer, “Mein Kampf.” It recognizes that this book contains the principles of the purist ethnic morals under which the German people must live.

    16. The National Reich Church will see to it that this book spread its active forces among the entire population and that all Germans live by it.

    18. The National Reich Church WILL REMOVE FROM THE ALTARS OF ALL CHURCHES THE BIBLE, THE CROSS, AND RELIGIOUS OBJECTS..

    19. In their places will be set that which must be venerated by the German people and therefore is by God, our most saintly book, “Mein Kampf,” and to the left of this a sword.

    21. In the National Reich Church there will be no remission of sins; its tenet is that, once committed, a sin is irrevocable and will be implacably punished by the laws of nature and in this world.

    30. On the day of the foundation of the National Reich Church the Christian cross shall be removed from all churches, cathedrals, and chapels inside the frontiers of the Reich and its colonies and will be replaced by the symbol of invincible Germany-the swastika.

    Former Waffen SS soldier Gereon Goldmann claims,

    One day a big shot from Berlin came to speak to us. We were stunned by what he said, but we weren’t allowed to tell anyone-it was strictly confidential. This man told us that ‘Victory could only be complete when all the churches were destroyed. Not only the Jewish religion, but also all Christian faiths would have to be eliminated’

    The Shadow of His Wings: The True Story of Fr. Gereon Goldmann, OFM

    So, Nash, you’re either hilariously ignorant or so consumed with hate for Christianity you can’t see the truth. Either way, you ought learn to choose your battles more carefully next time.

  54. mmmike917 says:

    You know, this back and forth over whether Hitler was a Christian is needless. If you have just a basic understanding of Christianity and the Holocaust, it is actually very easy to prove that Hitler was not an authentic Christian using a simple line of reasoning.

    1. Christians worship the historical Jesus of Nazareth as God.
    2. The historical Jesus was a Jew.
    3. Hitler (and the Nazis) regarded the Jews as subhuman…as pigs.
    4. If Hitler believed that the Jews were less than human, it follows that he would have thought that the historical Jesus was less than human because Jesus was a Jew.
    5. Authentic Christians do not regard Jesus as less than human. They, in fact, regard him as MORE than human (He’s God).
    6. Therefore Hitler was NOT a Christian in any meaningful sense, and any “Jesus” he professed to follow was a figment of his imagination like a KKKer revering a “white” Martin Luther King Jr.

    I mean…come on, this is not that hard.

  55. mmmike917,

    I thought of taking that route, but Nash would reject it. You can’t use religious arguments with atheists because they reject them out of hand.

  56. mmmike917 says:

    I don’t think that was really a religious argument. It was more of a logical argument based on what Christianity actually teaches about the Jews as opposed to Nazism. One doesn’t need to accept that Jesus was divine to see the how diametrically opposed they are to each other. Heck, one doesn’t even need to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure to see it. That’s all I was saying.

  57. mmmike917,

    It was, though. You’re saying that so and so isn’t a Christian because [enter teachings of Jesus they didn’t follow] and I’m telling you Nash would reject it or find a way to use that same argument to disqualify all of us from Christianity. He’d point out the hypocrisy of all of us, the sins we all commit, and then ask why Hitler is any worse since “no sin is worse than another.”

  58. Nash is not an idiot, mmmike917. He was wrong in this debate, yes, but he was merely defending a typical leftist belief that he’s been brainwashed to believe. But he’s not stupid and I’m telling you that that argument will not work. So, I chose the historical, secular argument.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: