Posted on 06/08/2009 11:04:36 AM PDT by ventanax5
LOL, one of the reviews from Amazon:
Hitler and the occult... a nonexistent collaboration (...) Consult Hitler’s own words, where he slammed the occult as “Jewish and Bolshevik.”
This is a difficult video to review because its premise is flawed from the get go: there is no occult associated with Hitler and there never was. The people chosen to be interviewed in this unintentionally amusing documentary are (...) of the first order. None are respected, noted or competent historians, they are pop writers who believe in errant nonsense. What types of nonsense, you ask? I shall tell you: they believe that when Hitler was a young man living in Vienna, he stumbled upon a spear located in a local museum. The spear infused the young artist with mythical and evil “powers.” Yeah, right... and I was abucted yesterday by Martians and taken to outer space.
Only the most gullible [viewer] could believe anything in this childish video. Errors of the most fundamental nature abound: Hitler did not emigrate to Munich in 1912, but in 1913; Dietrich Eckart did not die in 1945, Hitler did not meet Eva Braun in 1933... the list is endless. As a laugh this might be useful, as history it is unreliable and puerile in the extreme.
“severity of Leviticus”
A common misunderstanding.
For example, you may recognize Leviticus 18.19 “you shall love your neighbor as yourself”
You conveniently forget all the religious kingdoms of history (which were all totalitarian) as well as the Holy Roman Empire.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Amazing, isn’t it? Once the bible was published, and widely available in the people’s own language, how quickly the war lords of Europe were tamed.
Imagine that! The people learned that we are equal before God, and demanded that all men ( including their rulers) be equal before just and honest courts of law.
A revolutionary idea, don’t you think? Once free themselves, they freed the slaves worldwide.
Wow, a random review on the Internet is your source.
Who to believe, the BBC or some random guy?
LOL.
You are, indeed, a mocker. Not a smart one, but persistent.
He has made statements there that are not random. They are verifiable.
Don’t be an idiot, when you can help it.
LOL, if you ignore a millennium of mechanized bloodshed, that is. Europe was perpetually at war with itself, all through the ages, culminating with the blood-bath of the 1940s.
Well, for example: Faith in what you believe will happen with your "life" or your "consciousness" when you die. Some believe that nothing happens, that is... it just stops and your consciousness ceases to be. Some others believe that something new happens and there is continued existence of some kind. Either way it is merely faith. There is no evidence that can be presented either way. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Atheists rely on the same faith as believers. Just faith in a different result.
All you have to do is Google “Himmler Occult” and you will get 10,000 hits from any number of reputable sources.
I know you are the type of person who just HAS to be right, but you are not.
You are Bagdad Bob.
Google “Jews 911” and you will get multiple million hits.
That does not make the premise that the Jews orchestrated 9-11, true.
Apply same logic.
“Atheists rely on the same faith as believers.”
No, for two reasons. Everything I believe is based on evidence of some kind. Where the evidence is overwhelmingly certain I believe very strongly, but most things I believe are tentative or only probable, depending on the validity of the evidence and the limits of my own knowledge and ability to reason to a certain conclusion about them. I think a theist believes with absolute certainty some things for which there is little or no evidence—that’s “faith” as you use the term. I don’t believe anything that way.
The second difference is reliance on authority, another person’s words, or writing, or reasoning. I do not accept anything as true solely on the word of others. That does not mean I doubt other’s words (calling them a liar without evidence is equally wrong), or history books, only that I do not accept them with the same level of credence I do those things for which I have direct evidence. I have to weigh the trustworthiness of the writer, for example.
For example, I believe most, if not all, of the Bible is true in the sense that the historic events and people recorded are all true, that the writers were sincere (if mistaken), and that what exists today is essentially what was originally written. I do not agree with what the writers believed, especially in doctrinal and philosophical areas, but I think their reasoning was often superior to anything that exists today—though not wholly. I would certainly regard Aristotle superior in reasoning, though Paul was certainly aware of him.
While I do not believe in a God myself, I find most “atheists” contemptibly ignorant and arrogant, and have much more sympathy with the moral views and character of Christians.
Hank
“Some believe that nothing happens, that is... it just stops and your consciousness ceases to be. Some others believe that something new happens and there is continued existence of some kind. Either way it is merely faith.”
Meant to mention this. You’ve assumed something (and you know that’s a mistake). You have assumed I believe something about what happens after death, but in fact I have no thought, much less a belief, about it at all. Why would I need to consider it? It is a question that has no interest to me at all. I know I had no thoughts about what being would be before I was born, that’s my attitude about death as well.
Hank
"...the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam." So announces former nun and self-professed "freelance monotheist," Karen Armstrong....who also is lying about Islam, Christianity, the Bible, and the Koran.
Whoops, sorry ventanax5 about that ping. Thanks for the topic.
Isn't an “attitude” a belief? You “believe” that it isn't worth dwelling on, or considering.
All sentient beings have a belief system regarding God(s). They are:
1) They are atheists
2) They believe a God(s) exist
3) They are not sure.
The above is axiomatic.
An belief vacuum is impossible for a sentient being. It is **belief** too, because none of the three positions above can be proven.
Corollary: Atheism, agnosticism, or a belief in God(s) has non-neutral political, cultural, and religious consequences.
Exactly.
Don't know if you've talked with many atheists,
but every one of them is as you describe, arrogant and closed minded. It's a requirement of atheism.
Armstrong can be discounted on several grounds, One is her shallow scholarship. The second is her theology. She is an ex-nun, apostate Catholic who is gnostic in her theology. The ignores the plain fact that Islam was spread by the sword from Persia to Spain in just over 100 years, that the violence of the Crusaders was a response to the violence of the Turkish invaders of Asia Minor in the later 11th Century.Western politics did ruin the Byzantine empire, but it held together until it was overrun by the Ottoman Turks in the 15th Century.
Hank K,...faith is a system of perception of spiritual things. They are very real. They can have impact on the material domain, and upon thoughts, so they may intrude upon the physical and the mental, but they still are not seen.
Those who are not spiritually regenerated do not understand because they lack that perception.
“You ‘believe’ that it isn’t worth dwelling on, or considering.”
I make no such judgment. You are attempting to thrust your thinking into someone else’s mind.
Sorry, I have no idea what the word “belief” means to you, but I only mean “something one holds as true” to some degree. If you only mean they have some thought about it, without any judgment of its veracity, OK, but that is your own private meaning of “belief.”
It is not necessary to hold any idea as the true one about anything. The ability to reason allows one to choose not to judge something (because they do not have enough evidence, or interest) and therefore hold no view about it—that is, have no belief about it at all.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
