Thought Experiment

No, you need to understand that marriage was much more important in ancient times because there was no police force or welfare system.
And rather than tell them to have police and a welfaire system, God thought it preferable to have them sell their daughters as slaves.

Your husband was both those things. A woman without a husband was not likely to live very long. So what the verse is calling selling a daughter as a slave is actually more like referring to what is more similar to a trial marriage without sex.
Why do you imagine there was no sex?!?

That is why it says she is unlike a male slave.
When it says "she shall not go out as the male slaves do" that means she will not be freed in the seventh year, as male Hebrew slaves are.

Exodus 7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.

After the trial marriage she is free to go back to her family if her master decides not to marry her.
Can you quote the verse you are getting that from? I could not find it,
 
Fraid so, Hitler believed that murdering the Jews was necessary at this stage in Aryan evolution to eliminate competiton for survival.
Really? From what I've read it was good old anti semitism. For example ...

The German defeat was hard to swallow for many Germans, and for Hitler, too. In nationalist and right-wing conservative circles, the ‘stab-in-the-back legend’ became popular. According to this myth, Germany did not lose the war on the battlefield, but through betrayal at the home front. The Jews, Social Democrats, and Communists were held responsible.
Found here.
Yes, but because Germany as the most educated country at the time and Hitler had great respect for science, he used evolution to justify his persecution scientifically.
This is a form of moral relativism and nonbelief in an objective transcendent morality.
Atheism cannot provide an objective transcendent moral standard. Thereby making Hitlers pantheism a form of practical atheism.
At the time, Germany was a Christian nation that went along with Hitler's demonisation of the Jews.
Most of the German Christians were either Christian nationalists or theological liberals. Both of which are heresies that have little respect for Gods moral teachings regarding human equality.
 
Yes, but because Germany as the most educated country at the time and Hitler had great respect for science, he used evolution to justify his persecution scientifically.
Is this just your interpretation, or do you have specific, detailed evidence that shows this?
Most of the German Christians were either Christian nationalists or theological liberals. Both of which are heresies that have little respect for Gods moral teachings regarding human equality.
This is a claim, and I'd like to see evidence of all you're saying.
 
Most of the German Christians were either Christian nationalists or theological liberals. Both of which are heresies that have little respect for Gods moral teachings regarding human equality.
Most of the OT is about how the Jews re God's chosen people, and he wioll lead them to greatness over the other peoples. When did God change his mind, and go for human equality instead?
 
What is your evidence for that? Specifically that they ignored the first commandment, and placed their nation above God.
That is what the definition of nationalism is. They called themselves Nationalist Socialists. Your nation is your number one priority. Their motto was "Deutschland uber Alles", ie "Germany over all". And their behavior confirmed it.
The ability to rationalise away "You shall not murder" does not require that. Plenty examples in the Bible of God's chosen people killing enemies - including women and children, and often at God's command.
The old hebrew theocracy had a unique purpose under the Old Covenant, it was Gods arm of judgement on the pagan nations at the time in that area. The wages of sin is death. We all deserve death at birth because of our sinful nature and sinful behavior. Capital punishment is not murder. Under the New Covenant Christ brought mercy and grace so that what was under the old nation of Israel a capital crime no longer was one except murder. All other crimes and sins no longer required temporal death.
Many Christians believed Jews as a race were responsible for the death of Jesus, based on this (though the author likely did not mean it that way):

Mat 27:24 Now when Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; you yourselves shall see.” 25 And all the people replied, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” 26 Then he released Barabbas [l]for them; but after having Jesus flogged, he handed Him over to be crucified.
No, a careful analysis of the gospels show that these were primarily the Jewish leaders. Most of the ordinary jews liked Jesus though did not believe He was the messiah. In addition, obviously the people at Jesus' trial making that statement hardly means that the entire race was responsible. Even if it was true for this particular group of jews it still does not mean that jews living 2000 years later were responsible. Most Biblically literate Christians know these facts.
The Holocaust was not a one-off. It was just the biggest of a long history of Christians killing and otherwise persecuting Jews. I am sure those involved in the Holocaust did not think what they were doing was murder.
Yes because they had already replaced God with the nation of Germany.
Here is Martin Luther's blueprint for the Holocaust. Do you consider Luther to be a heretic? The Catholic church did, so may be.

Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:
First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire...
Second, that all their books-- their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible-- be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted...
Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country...
Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it...

You want to pretend Darwin was a great influence of Hitler, but the evidence indicates it was the great Christian, Martin Luther, who was his big hero. As Hitler wrote in "Mein Kampf" (Vol. 1, Chapter 8):
Actually Martin Luther admired the Jews most of his life, only when he got older and he didnt see alot jews convert as he thought they would after the Reformation that he turned against them. But he never advocated their extermination. Hitler just used Luther to get the Christians on his side. HItler himself hated Christianity and planned to destroy the church after WW2..
To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner.
Those other two heroes of his are atheists in case you didnt know. Why do you think that was?
Interestingly, in the same book, Hitler wrote:

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.

Sounds like a rejection of evolution and statement of creationism to me!
No, see my post earlier in this thread where Hitler talks about the evolutionary origin of humans to his secretary. He greatly admired the theory of evolution. This quote is referring to how their character and nature remains the same and cant be changed. He was using them as analogy to say that inferior humans like the jews cannot change their character and nature.
Further, you originally said "Well it is true that atheism or practical atheism in Germany leads to subjective and relative morality and that is a slippery slope toward tyranny." If you are saying that what 94% of the nation believed was "a heretical form of Christianity", then clearly they were not atheist.
They were PRACTICAL atheists. If there is no God then there are no objective moral standards as well. German Christian Nationalists lived as if there was no objective moral standards. But of course claimed they were Christians because they conflated German patriotism with German Christianity.
 
That is what the definition of nationalism is.
No it is not. It is putting your nation above other nations.

loyalty and devotion to a nation
especially : a sense of national consciousness (see CONSCIOUSNESS sense 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups

They called themselves Nationalist Socialists. Your nation is your number one priority. Their motto was "Deutschland uber Alles", ie "Germany over all". And their behavior confirmed it.
Germany over all other nations.

The old hebrew theocracy had a unique purpose under the Old Covenant, it was Gods arm of judgement on the pagan nations at the time in that area. The wages of sin is death. We all deserve death at birth because of our sinful nature and sinful behavior. Capital punishment is not murder.
Great example of rationalising away murder!

Under the New Covenant Christ brought mercy and grace so that what was under the old nation of Israel a capital crime no longer was one except murder. All other crimes and sins no longer required temporal death.
Can you point me to the verse in the NT that says only murder is now a capital offence. I ask because I very much doubt there is one; I suspect you are making this up. It is another rationalisation.

No, a careful analysis of the gospels show that these were primarily the Jewish leaders.
A careful analysis will reveal it was the Romans who killed Jesus. That is not the point. The point is the that "Many Christians believed Jews as a race were responsible for the death of Jesus." That is a fact, whether their belief was Biblical or not.

And that fact led to anti-Semitism, pogroms and ultimately the Holocaust.

Yes because they had already replaced God with the nation of Germany.
Again, this is based on a faulty understanding of what "nationalism" means.

Actually Martin Luther admired the Jews most of his life, only when he got older and he didnt see alot jews convert as he thought they would after the Reformation that he turned against them. But he never advocated their extermination. Hitler just used Luther to get the Christians on his side. HItler himself hated Christianity and planned to destroy the church after WW2..
He certainly advocated persecution of Jews. And Hitler is on record saying he was a great admirer of Luther.

The link from Hitler to Luther is far stronger than from Hitler to Darwin!

Those other two heroes of his are atheists in case you didnt know. Why do you think that was?
Because of the impact they had on Germany.

Worth noting that Frederick the Great was noted for being more tolerate of Jews...

No, see my post earlier in this thread where Hitler talks about the evolutionary origin of humans to his secretary.
What post? As I recall you never actually found a quote to support this. I see in post #2057 you do name the book, but nothing beyond that. Giving your rather loose definition of nationalism, I am skeptical of this claim.

He greatly admired the theory of evolution. This quote is referring to how their character and nature remains the same and cant be changed. He was using them as analogy to say that inferior humans like the jews cannot change their character and nature.

They were PRACTICAL atheists. If there is no God then there are no objective moral standards as well. German Christian Nationalists lived as if there was no objective moral standards. But of course claimed they were Christians because they conflated German patriotism with German Christianity.
They were Christians. They considered themselves Christians, they had "gott mit uns" on their belt buckles as they marched into war, and their anti-Semitism was deeply founded in Christianity.
 
More accurate to say he observed that some indigenous peoples were declining in numbers to a dramatic extent - native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, etc. - and he thought they would disappear altogether.
Yes and he said they were declining in number because they were less evolutionarily advanced than the Caucasian race and therefore would eventually go extinct.
 
Yes and he said they were declining in number because they were less evolutionarily advanced than the Caucasian race and therefore would eventually go extinct.
Where does he say they are "less evolutionarily advanced"? Quote the actual words.
 
Sorry, but before we progress I want solid evidence that this is what Hitler actually thought, as you've worded it.

So far you've presented a claim.
According Traudl Junge Hitler's last secretary said that sometimes Hitler engaged in discussions about religion and evolution. One time she said that Hitler stated "Science is not yet clear which branch humans originated from. We are obviously the highest stage of evolution of any mammal, evolved from the reptile to the mammal, perhaps thru the apes, up to humans. We are a member of creation and children of nature and the same laws are valid for us as for all living organisms. And in nature the law of struggle reigns from the beginning. Everything that is incapable of life and everything weak is eradicated. Only humans and especially the Church have made it their goal to artificially preserve the weak, the unfit for life, and the inferior."
 
According Traudl Junge Hitler's last secretary said that sometimes Hitler engaged in discussions about religion and evolution. One time she said that Hitler stated "Science is not yet clear which branch humans originated from. We are obviously the highest stage of evolution of any mammal, evolved from the reptile to the mammal, perhaps thru the apes, up to humans. We are a member of creation and children of nature and the same laws are valid for us as for all living organisms. And in nature the law of struggle reigns from the beginning. Everything that is incapable of life and everything weak is eradicated. Only humans and especially the Church have made it their goal to artificially preserve the weak, the unfit for life, and the inferior."
You've quoted this to me before, and I answered with ...

Have you read the book? I've just skimmed through a transcript of it, I might have missed it but I didn't see anything of the sort. It does seem rather detailed and long for precise recollection.

So I'm still wondering where you got this from. If you've read the book and have it can you give the chapter and page number? If you haven't read the book where did you get the quote from?

But I don't think you answered.
 
His own writings suggest he was more creationist than Darwinist.

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
- Hitler, Mein Kampf​
The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.
- Hitler, Mein Kampf​
Mein Kampf was propaganda specifically for German Christians. So of course he is going to pretend to be a theist. But his actual view was revealed to his secretary. Traudl Junge who was Hitler's last secretary said that sometimes Hitler engaged in discussions about religion and evolution. One time she said that Hitler stated "Science is not yet clear which branch humans originated from. We are obviously the highest stage of evolution of any mammal, evolved from the reptile to the mammal, perhaps thru the apes, up to humans. We are a member of creation and children of nature and the same laws are valid for us as for all living organisms. And in nature the law of struggle reigns from the beginning. Everything that is incapable of life and everything weak is eradicated. Only humans and especially the Church have made it their goal to artificially preserve the weak, the unfit for life, and the inferior."
 
Mein Kampf was propaganda specifically for German Christians. So of course he is going to pretend to be a theist. But his actual view was revealed to his secretary. Traudl Junge who was Hitler's last secretary said that sometimes Hitler engaged in discussions about religion and evolution. One time she said that Hitler stated "Science is not yet clear which branch humans originated from. We are obviously the highest stage of evolution of any mammal, evolved from the reptile to the mammal, perhaps thru the apes, up to humans. We are a member of creation and children of nature and the same laws are valid for us as for all living organisms. And in nature the law of struggle reigns from the beginning. Everything that is incapable of life and everything weak is eradicated. Only humans and especially the Church have made it their goal to artificially preserve the weak, the unfit for life, and the inferior."
You are basing your whole argument on what one women has reported. Why should we trust her to be honest? Why should we trust her to remember correctly?

Indeed, it is worse than that. You are repeatedly asked to provide some sort of evidence that Junge actually reported these things, and repeatedly fail to do so. A search for the phrase "Science is not yet clear which branch humans originated from" on Google turns up just two hits - from this thread! Why should anyone trust you about what Junge said?
 
Have you read the book? I've just skimmed through a transcript of it, I might have missed it but I didn't see anything of the sort. It does seem rather detailed and long for precise recollection.
No, but it was quoted in a book I own. Some people especially women have very good memories.
So I'm still wondering where you got this from. If you've read the book and have it can you give the chapter and page number? If you haven't read the book where did you get the quote from?
It is on page 122. It is quoted in a book called Darwinian Racism.
 
No, but it was quoted in a book I own. Some people especially women have very good memories.
What makes you think Junge is one of those people?

And how have you determined that she does not have her own agenda?

It is on page 122. It is quoted in a book called Darwinian Racism.
So you are basing your argument on a book by a guy who has a clear agenda to discredit evolution. That is the objective of the book; we know that because that is the stated aim of the publisher, the Discovery Institute. That does not make it necessarily wrong, but it does give us good reason not to trust it.

The sad fact is that creationism has a long history of dishonesty, and in particular of quote-mining. When you say a book by a creationist has a certain quote, I for one will be very sceptical, especially as we can find no sign of that quote elsewhere on the internet.

So now we have another layer of uncertainty:
  • Why should we think Junge's memory is accurate?
  • Why should we think Junge has not coloured the recording with her own beliefs?
  • Why should we think Weikart has not coloured the account with his beliefs, especially given we know he has an agenda to discredit evolution?
In contrast, we have Hitler's own words recorded at the time in Mein Kampf. You said before:

Mein Kampf was propaganda specifically for German Christians. So of course he is going to pretend to be a theist. But his actual view was revealed to his secretary. Traudl Junge who was Hitler's last secretary said that sometimes Hitler engaged in discussions about religion and evolution.
It is interesting how fast you rationalise away what Hitler said himself, and instead choose to believe what someone else said about what someone else remembered him saying decades later.
 
I misunderstood, I thought you wanted a quote from Hitler that was equivalent to referring to gene pool. Hitler hated Christianity from childhood. His childhood friend August Kubizek says Hitler refused to go to mass with his mother and read books about the church's witch hunts and the Inquistion and this made him very angry at the church. As an adult he said "The evil that is gnawing at our vitals are the priests of both creeds." He planned to destroy the churches later after the war. In 1942 he said "practical politics demands that, for the time being at least, we must avoid any appearance of a campaign against the church."
Ok.
Just because an animal calls something morality and behaves in a certain way because of certain conseqences, does not mean that such a thing actually exists. A dog looks in a mirror and believes another dog exists, but we know that is not true. What is your evidence that morality actually exists?
Just because you say this, doesn't mean wat you say is correct, right?
Well it is correct until somebody is able to refute it. And so far no one has.
Yes we have an animal body but we have something animals dont have, personhood.
An awful lot of pet owners will disagree.
Yes, pet lovers often anthropomorphize their pets.
Yes, but that is just one interpretation. It could be that the brain is like a computer keyboard to the outside world. If the keyboard (brain) gets damaged then it would appear like the keyboard operator (mind) is also damaged, but in fact that would not be true.
Do you have any other speculations?
It is just as good as yours.
See above. If God does not exist, then there is no such thing as morality so how can something be objectively wrong? It would just be your subjective opinion.
If something is objectively wrong, then it's wrong whether God exists or not.
Please explain how can something be objectively wrong if God does not exist? Remember for something to objectively exist it must exist outside human minds.
Because Man was created by the Judeo-Christian God, it feels that we "come up" with morality, but actually that is because He has given us a moral conscience. But we still need to judge that conscience according to an objective standard because of our limited knowledge but without God no such standard exists.
I disagree.
Ok where does that standard objectively exist?
 
Yes, pet lovers often anthropomorphize their pets.
No, it's not anthropomorphising. If you have animals, particularly several cats say, you will notice each will have it's own personality.
It is just as good as yours.
I don't think so. There are good reasons to think the mind is an emergent property of the brain. What you are doing is adding a completely unevidenced extra step.
Please explain how can something be objectively wrong if God does not exist? Remember for something to objectively exist it must exist outside human minds.
You need to explain this better. God is a mind, how does what his mind thinks make His moral judgements objective?
Ok where does that standard objectively exist?
Can you explain what you mean by a "standard" of morality? There's no scale of morality like there are temperature scales, so I'm wondering what you mean by it.
 
Given that chimps are social animals, this behavior could be just an instinct to maintain the survival of the group this hardly proves empathy. And if the chimp did not share food, there is no evidence he would punished for not sharing it. True morality involves justice as well. Just recognizing one animal in your group is hungry hardly qualifies as a moral behavior if there are no consequences for not being moral.
This comes across as an admission that you only do good to avoid punishment.
No, as a mature Christian I obey God out of love for Him and His imagebearers, humans. But some less mature people do need to be punished sometimes to get them to obey. And certainly justice sometimes requires punishment. Do you deny that justice is a part of morality?
Surely morality is doing good and avoiding wrong because they are good and wrong respectively, rather than following rules as otherwise you will be punished.
See above. But if there is no God then there is no such thing as a moral obligation to do good.
Do you think murder is okay if you can get away with it, if you can ensure you will not be punished for it?
No, see above but some people DO need that deterrent. If there is no God then Hitler DID get away with murder. He got to choose his own quick death and faces no future consequences.
 
Back
Top