A History Lesson for Donna

Aug 11, 2006 | Pop Culture/Politics | 7 comments

Ok, I know that my readers vary in Faith and Politics, so I think everyone will find this interesting. Poor Cindy 50 sent a forwarded email that contained some pretty nasty stuff (that clearly had been added along the way) but it contained alot of truth too and it sparked a flurry on email. Some down right nasty. I promise to blog about things that get on my nerves and one them is blatent false information. Here is an exchange (though lengthy) that I had with one of these emailers that I thought you might enjoy. It’s long – don’t give up.

HI ANGELA......
> I GOT YOUR REPLY BACK ABOUT THE MUSLIM'S.
> I WONDERED WHERE YOU GOT YOUR INFO.???
> HITLER WAS INDEED A CATHOLIC.THAT IS A KNOWN FACT.
> HIS ATTROSITIES AGAINST THE JEWS WAS WELL
> DOCUMENTED. ALSO.
> THE LAST POPE APOLIGIZED ON BEHALF OF THE
> CHURCH(YEARS LATER!), BECAUSE THE
> CHURCH HAD LOOKED THE OTHER WAY AND DIDN'T DO
> ANYTHING ABOUT THE 6 MILLION
> JEWS THAT WERE KILLED.WE NEED TO REMEMBER TO WATCH
> WHO WE FOLLOW..
> FOLLOWERS HAVE A TENDANCY TO NOT THINK.(IT'S
> EASIER.).A PERSONS ACTION
> SPEAKS VOLUMNS.WORDS CAN BE JUST WORDS.HITLER'S ARMY
> HAD BELT BUCKLES
> INSCRIBED,"GOTT MIT UNS"(GOD IS WITH US)HIS TROOPS
> WERE OFTEN SPINKLED WITH
> HOLY WATER BY PRIESTS.BOTH THE STATE AND CHURCH
> BLINDLY FOLLOWED ALL
> AUTHORITY FIGURES.PAST HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IS
> STEEPED IN EVIL.(FACT!)
> CHRISTIAN'S NEED TO GET INTO PAST HISTORYS AND SEE
> HOW MANY WARS THAT WERE
> FOUGHT IN THE NAME OF GOD.(MANY)! THE BIBLE IS
> NOT THE ONLY PLACE TO GET INFO.WE LIVE IN THE 21ST
> CENTURY.
> HOPE THIS HELPS YOU SEE THE LIGHT.WE ALL NEED TO
> SEARCH FOR TRUTH!
> THANKS FOR THE OPORTUNITY TO SET YOU STRAIT.DONNA

My response to Donna was this...


Donna,
I don't know who you are so with all due respect -
perhaps you should take that huge chip off your
shoulder before you read this so you can really take
in what is below.

You wrote- "His atrocities against the Jews was well
documented." insinuates that I think the Holocaust
did not take place. I do not appreciate that. I may
be a Christian, I am not an idiot - though you clearly
think the two go hand in hand.

I would be the first to acknowledge that the church
should have done more during this time but you should
brush up on your facts before spouting off in an
email. True - the church could have done so much more
but to say they did nothing is absolutely untrue - and
pardon me, but you sound like a gal that is obsessed
with "truth."

The Pope at the time DID speak out against what was
going on - he even wrote a book (the name is escaping
me) about it - IN GERMAN no less (at the time anything
coming out of the Vatican was written in Latin) to
make his intentions clear on to whom he was
addressing.

"The Pope did act behind the scenes on occasion.
During the German occupation of Hungary in March 1944,
he, along with the papal nuncio in Budapest, Angelo
Rotta, advised the Hungarian government to be moderate
in its plans concerning the treatment of the Jews.
Pius XII protested against the deportation of Jews
and, when his protests were not heeded, he cabled
again and again.(23) The Pope's demands, combined with
similar protests from the King of Sweden, the
International Red Cross, Britain and the United States
contributed to the decision by the Hungarian regent,
Admiral Miklos Horthy, to cease deportations on July
8, 1944.

In the later stages of the war, Pius XII appealed to
several Latin American governments to accept
“emergency passports” that several thousand Jews had
succeeded in obtaining. Due to the efforts of the Pope
and the U.S. State Department, 13 Latin American
countries decided to honor these documents, despite
threats from the Germans to deport the passport
holders.

The Church also answered a request to save 6,000
Jewish children in Bulgaria by helping to transfer
them to Palestine. At the same time, however, Cardinal
Maglione wrote to the apostolic delegate in
Washington, A.G. Cicognani, saying this did not mean
the Pope supported Zionism."

You are ignorant in your statement that the church
turned the other way and did nothing. The Vatican
itself hid 477 Jews and in convents and monastaries in
Rome another 4,238 were hid.

On Hitler -
"The allegation is sometimes made that Hitler was a
Catholic - a Christian until the day he died. This
claim is based upon the fact that Hitler was born and
raised in a Catholic family.

However, as an adult, Hitler specifically rejected the
Catholic Church, as well as Christianity in general.
He described himself as "a complete pagan".

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations: 1941-1944,
published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. (1953),
contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The
book was published in Britain under the title,
Hitler's Table Talk: 1941-1944, which title was used
for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in
the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

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. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:

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. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a
natural death.... When understanding of the universe
has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be
convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached
the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its
structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid
of Christianity is to allow it to die little by
little.... Christianity [is] the liar.... We'll see to
it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in
conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:

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.

21st October, 1941, midday:

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. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:

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.... [here he insults people who believe
transubstantiation] .... 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. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:

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. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:

There is something very unhealthy about
Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:

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 Uin the next 200 yearse will
certainly see the end of the disease of
Christianity.... My regret will have been that I
couldn't... behold its demise." (p 278)

Was Hitler Excommunicated?

The allegation is sometimes made that the Catholic
Church never excommunicated Hitler from membership. It
is unknown whether Hitler was formally excommunicated
or not, but it doesn't matter. Hitler was already
excommunicated ipso facto under the canon law of the
Catholic Church for his numerous sinful crimes. He
could only have returned to the Catholic faith, even
assuming that he would ever have wanted to, by having
his excommunication removed by the Pope himself. The
lifting of such excommunication is reserved to the
Pope, latae sententiae.

Furthermore, the conference of German bishops
excommunicated all Nazis in 1930, and in the 1932
elections forbade Catholics to vote for a Nazi. By
being the leader of the Nazi party, Hitler had already
put himself outside of the Church.

Finally, it should be noted that the whole purpose of
excommunication is to help the sinner recognize the
enormity of his sins, so he will seek forgiveness. As
St. Paul wrote: "If any one refuses to obey our word
by this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do
with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not look on him
as an enemy, but warn him as a brother." (2 Thes
3:14-15). Someone like Hitler, who did not believe in
the truth of Christianity, would simply shrug it off."

I am slightly curious at to what you consider "truth"
since you seem to know something the rest of us don't
but I can not say that I would look forward to another
email in all capitol letters. Has anyone ever told
you that, that is rather agressive?

This "truth" that you have found...how is that working
out for you? You sound pretty cranky to me.



Credit where it is due:
Clearly, I am not getting all my info from the Bible
as you accused me of. I would like to thank
JewishVirtualLibrary.org , My history teachers and the
books in my library (one being the Bible) for the
information in this rebuttle.

Consider yourself set straight.

7 Comments

  1. FarmgirlCyn

    Ang,
    All I can say is, I am SO very glad that we are on the same side!!!!
    You go girl. I am very proud of you. Not afraid to tacklewhat some might consider “delicate” subjects. You put your $ where your mouth is, so to speak. Facts, not just feelings. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into this. I am proud to count you and J as friends, as well as brothers and sisters in the Lord.

    Cindy

    Reply
  2. Platonicus Booknutticus

    That’ll do. I hope.

    Though, am I alone in fearing it won’t?

    Alas, rich lesson in history that that was, it appears she requires a logic lesson before she even be given the solid food of facts to eat.

    I’m so momentarily depleted by the constant reminder that people such as your interlocutor exist, that I dare not read her letter to you again at the moment. It made me sad.

    However, may I offer on observation?

    Let us suppose that ALL of those journal entries which you quoted actually supported your opponents view rather than yours.

    Let us suppose that she had sent them to you as evidence for her claim, rather than you to her as evidence for your claim.

    What now?

    (And I ask this because she might simply dismiss all your efforts as errant research)

    The question then, to her, is this:

    Of which view, Christian or Atheistic, is what Hitler ACTUALLY did (since neither denies it) a logical outworking? Do you see?

    More clarification in case any do not…

    We have fundamentally opposed ways of looking at reality… two metaphysical assumptions.

    One (the Atheistic) says:
    The world and everything in it are utterly accidental. All that exists is matter, and all that we ever experienced, do experience, or will experience, is simply a result of the random movement of material particles.

    The other (the Christian) says:
    People are the single most important, infinitely important piece of the entire CREATED order, precisely because it is a created order, and because its creator has claimed to have made US in His image, and only as such are we of infinite value, because our value is His prescription, not merely our arbitrary description (ala every secular ‘human rights’ schema).

    Now, the question we wish to pose to your friend, the dunce, is this:

    “Of these two views, since they are in fact the two in question, WHICH is the ONLY that can logically justify what Hitler did? Or concersely, which is the ONLY that can logically condemn what Hitler did?

    The point is that should she deny the Theistic position, her accusation against Hitler devolves to the status of a random chemical reaction in her brain, no better nor no worse than the chemical reaction in Hitler’s brain.

    Do we see? It’s very much nothing to the point at all whether Hitler claimed to be a Catholic, an atheist, a Rastafarian, or even a Jew. The question is prior to all of that.

    She has “in sinful suppression of the truth” (Romans) entangled you in the brambles of historical details out of which you will never adaquately clear yourself that she may “come correct”.

    She is diverting you. Even the Bible says so. She might take your advice and give it a read.

    Philosophy first.

    Hit ’em where it hurts.

    love,
    nic.

    Reply
  3. Platonicus Booknutticus

    Humbug.

    I have to add. I know that you have accrued for yourself a substantial reader base, and I want to emplore both you and them to understand what has been said.

    I want us to see what a looong, draaawwn out mess she as drawn you into by bickering over historical blips. You’ve searched high and low for facts to refute her nonsense. However, the tragedy is that – in her complacent vapor of stupifaction – she is likely to lull herself to sleep, or on to more important thoughts (like what’s on the tube tonight) LONG before you have established your point.

    And thus, all your valiant efforts fall on deaf (not to mention, dumb) ears.

    We MUST avoid this. You must never take the bait.

    The ground on which she wishes to engage you is mine-filled.

    The questions she is bating you with are loaded.

    We must press the questions themselves for the philosophical assumptions within them, else the argument is lost the moment it is entered.

    Read how Jesus responded.
    Read how Socrates responded.

    Always returning a question to the questioner. Why? Because they knew that the questioner (pharisees and the self-supposed wise men) were smuggling in assumptions into their questions that had pre-determined the outcome of the argument!

    The Pharisees question regarding taxes PRESUPPOSES that Jesus is a leader of this world, on par with the peers in that category. Jesus did not take the bait.

    Back of your woman’s whole conention is the ASSUMPTION that it would matter if Hitler claimed to be a Christian.

    But this entirely misses the point.

    What Hitler did ONLY follows logically from the atheistic worldview, NOT from the Theistic.

    Do you see?

    Giver her her ground! That is, even IF Hitler sang sunday school songs and planned his battles on flannel-graph boards, his actual actions would then be fundamentally oppposed to his professed belief.

    However, if we assume the atheistic worldview, we will travel to the ends of the earth and still never be able to find adaquate philosophical grounds to OBJECT to what Hitler did.

    Now we ask your woman, does she object to what Hitler did? Yes?

    Then she must affirm the Christian position, or admit to being a fundamentally inconsistent person, and thus not to be taken seriously.

    Christians, PRESS THE QUESTION FOR ITS ASSUMPTIONS.

    This message has been brought to you, in whole, by God.

    love nic.

    Reply
  4. cityfarmer

    Donna, is that your name?. . .consider yourself set straight again.

    Reply
  5. Faith

    Nic, I love you man, but you make my brain hurt. I need a dictionary just to read your comments/blogs 🙂
    Is it just me, or what? Am I that stupid? It must have something to do with Creston High School and lack of a college education. Yeah, I’m definiely a loser. :):)

    Reply
  6. Platonicus Booknutticus

    Ah, Faith, have some faith.

    Watch how your very response regarding “not understanding what I’m talking about” provides occaision and illustration (both!) for me to explain what I’m talking about!

    Look-see…

    What I’m talking about in the notes to Angela are “assumptions”, plain and simple.

    “Assumptions” are just things that we take to be true.

    For instance, if I asked you “Faith, how is your car handling these days?” I’m ASSUMING that you have a car! See?

    All “assumption” means is just a thing that you take to be true.

    I have taken it to be “true” that you have a car, and skipped right over the whole issue and asked you “how your car is performing”?

    Do you see then, that I have actually asked TWO questions that are disguised as one?

    #1) Does Faith have a car?
    #2) Is that car running well?

    See how the second question is totally dependent on the answer given to the first? I mean that if you don’t have a car, then my question about how your car is running is totally nonsense.

    Therefore, in merely asking you question #2, I have “assumed” an answer to question #1.

    Or, we might say, that in typing all that I did on Angela’s blog, I have ASSUMED that the readers of Angela’s blog are quite familiar with the terms “assumption” and “presupposition”.

    But I was wrong!

    I made a wrong ASSUMPTION, because it is in fact true that some readers of Angela’s website do not use these terms/ideas so frequently that they immediately know what is meant by them.

    But now you understand that an “assumption” is just something that a person supposes to be true.

    But you have also seen something else… you’ve seen that sometimes in people’s questions there is a “hidden” assumption that really turns out to be two questions in one!

    Remember, in my asking you how your car was performing, there was a “hidden” assumption that you own a car!

    Yet I do not KNOW that you own a car!

    I merely “supposed” that you did.

    “Faith owns a car” was the ASSUMPTION in my question.

    Now, another name for assumptions is
    “pre-suppositions”.

    Do you see how the word gets formed?

    “pre” = before
    (then add that to “suppose”)

    It means to “suppose beforehand”, which we now see is also the same thing as “to assume”.

    If I “presuppose” something then I am “assuming” it, and if I’m “assuming” something then I’m “presupposing” it.

    They are interchangable terms. Synonyms.

    Potatoes = ‘Taters.

    Car = Automobile.

    Assumption = Presupposition.

    Assume = Presuppose.

    So we understand that now. But now the question is “Why has Nic spent two long comments on Angela’s site using these two words over and over again?”.

    Obviously it was necessary that we explain these words before answering that question. And now that we see what the words mean, we can answer the question.

    When people are questioning you, or arguing against you, it is important to understand that their questions and arguments contain “assumptions” that may be tricks meant to skew your answer.

    Have you ever heard someone say “Hey! That’s a loaded-question!!”

    What that means is, that question is loaded… with ASSUMPTIONS!!

    It means its an unfair question, because it is more than one question, but disguised and passed off as only one question.

    Me asking you how your car is performing is a loaded question!

    Do I know that you have a car? No. But by asking you “about your car” I have assumed that you do own one.

    Now…

    Donna has attacked Angela’s Christian position by saying “Yeah, well even Hitler was a Christian”!

    Now we want to stop right there and ask what Donna is ASSUMING by saying that?

    Remember, Donna even said that it was “well documented” that Hitler was a Christian.

    But we should notice that Donna is ASSUMING that it would matter such documentation existed!

    Does it?

    Let’s see.

    Faith I’m now going to prepare a document of my own, ready?

    Here it is…

    “Faith is a Christian”.

    There, I’ve documented it.

    But here is the question, does my writing down (or documenting) that you are a Christian have ANYTHING to do with whether you truly are a Christian?

    The answer should clearly be seen to be know.
    But in case it’s not, let me offer you another document as an example. Here…

    “Faith is Unicorn”.

    There, I’ve documented it.

    But does my doing so have any bearing on whether or not you actually are or are not a Unicorn?

    Only a fool (or maybe Donna) would say yes to that question.

    See, hiding behind Donna’s pointless statement is the ASSUMPTION that Christianity is something that can be confirmed or dis-confirmed by merely writing something on a piece of paper.

    See, Donna is ASSUMING this.

    So instead of bickering with her about historical documentation (of which you and I have NO adaquate knowledge and of which Angela herself had to rely on a bunch of sources who’s truth could easily be called into question) we do something else entirely with Donna.

    See, if you didn’t own a car, Faith, then when I asked you how your car was performing, the first question out of your mouth would have been…

    “Who told you that I had a car?”

    And in asking this, you would be doing what is called “questioning my assumption”.

    You have gone straight to my hidden assumption and brought it out into the light, and exposed the fact that I was really asking you multiple questions disguised as one.

    And so this is how we must proceed with Donna.

    We must question her ASSUMPTION.

    And what is her assumption?

    Again, her assumption is that documentation can confirm or dis-confirm one’s status as a Christian.

    Now, except for the Book of Life, I know of no such documentation, do you?

    Therefore, rather than bicker with here about historical documentation, we site our sights
    dead-set on her ridiculous ASSUMPTION.

    Why?

    Because her assumption is necessary for her statement to be meaningful.

    If we can show that her assumption is absurd, then her statement crumbles to the ground.

    If she knows anything of Christianity she must not hesistate in agreeing that a person’s status as a Christian is not something that can simply be verified or not by human documentation.

    She will have to admit that that’s ridiculous.

    But see, once it is admitted that THAT is ridiculous, then her whole statement becomes ridiculous.

    “There is documentation to show that Hitler was a Christian!!”

    So what?

    And THIS is why I urged Angela to consider that even if all those journal entries supported Donna’s statement… that is… even if they all said “I’m Hitler and I’m a Christian”, what would it prove?

    NOTHING!

    Why? Because we have already exposed the ridiculousness of ASSUMING that documentation can confirm or dis-confirm a person’s standing before Christ.

    But now you may be wondering about that whole “two worldviews” rant that I went on in the note to Angela. I would love to explain that, and I promise that it won’t take nearly as much space as I’ve taken here, but I want to see if you see this point about “assumptions” and “presuppositions” first.

    When I first commented on Angela’s post, I ASSUMED that all her readers understood what I was talking about.

    But now we’ve seen that I was wrong in my assumption, and so was Donna.

    Get it?

    love,
    nic.

    Reply
  7. Faith

    Nic, you’re awesome. That’s all I can say.

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Search Posts

Blog Categories

Archives by Date