[Dragom]

DerbyX DerbyX:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Dragom Dragom:

Wait, why can't Saudi-Arabia become the lynch pin of the Middle-East again? They have the money and the oil.

Because other than oil, they have nothing in the form of an economy. No industry, nothing. Turkey, on the other hand, is modernizing quickly and building an industrial base and is already the world's 17th largest economy. Basedon their current growth, they could reach the top 10 by 2040, which is when he predicts this conflict may occur. Friedman also mentions other possible 'leaders' of Islam (Iran and Egypt), but discounts them both because of their terrible economies, as well as the fact that Iran is already a pariah.

Why should the islamic world need a leader anyway? Turkey would do "the islamic world" a giant favour be not trying to speak for the islamic world and instead just be an example of a modern country with a majority of muslims living a modern and peaceful life.

So you say they should "lead" by example?

[commanderkai]

DerbyX DerbyX:

No, whats wrong is your disgusting revisionist belief that Hitler was anything but a christian compounded by your blaming communism and Atheism for 100 million deaths when you attempt to mitigate or deflect your religions great evil in the world.

Okay? There's a lot of bullshit in said above statement, way too much to go through without making this topic far from the original point.

$1:

That is insulting to all intelligent beings.

Don't ever try and post holocaust denial history again, and denying Hitler was a christian IS holocaust revisionism

Actually, from what I've seen, it's insulting to you, which doesn't bother me. Your track record with being wrong over personal attacks is well known, and this is only another example of your non-existent credibility.

Also, which makes this the most humorous for me, I didn't even argue Hitler's personal beliefs, but rather that religious beliefs was not the prime motivating factor for the Holocaust. I certainly don't see Hitler as a Christian, but he's dead, and I can't really ask him what religious he held.

[DerbyX]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Okay? There's a lot of bullshit in said above statement, way too much to go through without making this topic far from the original point.

Yeah, you often pull that crap. Claim "to much to go through" then run off. Par for the course with you.

commanderkai commanderkai:

Actually, from what I've seen, it's insulting to you, which doesn't bother me. Your track record with being wrong over personal attacks is well known, and this is only another example of your non-existent credibility.

Non-existent to you and your right wing troll chums. I get lots of support from the lefties on the site. As for you well, judging by your constant stream of neg rep points and the comments you make on so many other peoples profiles you seem to do all your personal attacks that way just as you started it up with me.

commanderkai commanderkai:

Also, which makes this the most humorous for me, I didn't even argue Hitler's personal beliefs, but rather that religious beliefs was not the prime motivating factor for the Holocaust. I certainly don't see Hitler as a Christian, but he's dead, and I can't really ask him what religious he held.

And yet that is exactly what you do when you claim he wasn't based not on facts but on circular logic because you can't handle the idea of one of your own doing what he did, something you have no problem doing for other groups.

For someone who claims to be despise historical revisionism you certainly have no problem engaging in holocaust revisionism because you are motivated to eliminate and/or minimize any possible links to christianity.

[DerbyX]

Dragom Dragom:

So you say they should "lead" by example?

If lead by example is what becoming the leader of the islamic world and its a good example then more power to them. Failure to lead by example is such a common deficiency in our own leaders.

[angler57]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DerbyX DerbyX:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Kind of an ironic moniker to give him considering the above statement by you.

Not at all. It actually comes from others saying it but thanks for asking. Next time he can keep quiet rather then jumping in with obvious ignorance to a fact based argument.

But, IN the spirit of fairness and trying to keep my levels of acrimony down at least, I give you a peace offering Derby. Through exhaustive searches and research, I discovered photographic evidence backing up your claim about Hitler being a Christian. However, it turns out he was REALLY a Southern Baptist:

Being part of any belief group is not just a thing that happens when you are born. Many of us attend church. And are believers.
I know Jews who have never been in temple. Catholic who don't attend mass. And,
even Southern Baptist that do not attend church.
Hitler a Christian? Yes he was born into a Christian family.
That no more makes him a religious man than standing in a garage will make you a car.

[DerbyX]

angler57 angler57:

Being part of any belief group is not just a thing that happens when you are born. Many of us attend church. And are believers.
I know Jews who have never been in temple. Catholic who don't attend mass. And,
even Southern Baptist that do not attend church.
Hitler a Christian? Yes he was born into a Christian family.
That no more makes him a religious man than standing in a garage will make you a car.

First off, being religious or not being religious isn't the same as saying somebody isn't a christian. I know plenty of people who are christian yet not religious, ie they attend church very infrequently, don't say grace, pray daily or otherwise do religious stuff. Doesn't change their beliefs though.

The fact here however is that he did. In addition to being born, baptised, and raised christian he was an alter boy for years. He took part in the holy communion when he was 15 and the holy communion is a very important event in catholicism. Its an affirmation of belief. As an adult he studied to join the priesthood.

At this point how can you draw any other conclusion as to what faith he held?

There are 2 main arguments that attempt to invalidate Hitlers christianity; 1 is that his acts alone mean he wasn't a christian. Its a circular logic fallacy that states that since christians don't commit bad acts of this nature anybody committing them cannot be a christian. Quite the racket. On one hand christians can sit back and attack other faiths for the awful things their adherents do and then sit back and smugly claim nobody of their faith does such things and when you illustrate with examples that yes they do they simply state that the people aren't "truly christian".

In fact that argument was made by CDN_PATRIOT which started this whole thing again. He claimed that christians weren't flying planes into buildings implying that it was only muslims acting badly to which I illustrated that contrary to his belief christians were committing other atrocities. The fact is that christians can and do commit atrocities but it doesn't change their beliefs in the divinity of JC which is pretty much the defining christian belief and from where the name "christianity" is drawn. Both the jewish faith and muslim faith believe that JC existed and both of them believe in the biblical god yet neither of them believe in his divinity. He is the second highest prophet in islam to boot but christian doctrine states that only by accepting JC as the lord/saviour and into your hearts is the path to salvation and nothing else. No lifetime of good deeds is sufficient to earn eternal salvation and all the worst murdering raping thieving human being has to do is accept JC into their hearts and beg forgiveness and they earn salvation. How certain are you that is not what happened to Hitler? The best you can possibly say is that he didn't act the way you think a christian should. I've already posted evidence showing that in fact there are lots and lots of christians who claim that other christians aren't true christians because they belong to a particular denomination or sect so christian credibility in determining who is christian is sorely lacking. Even christians who live a pious and religious life are called non-christians or untrue christians by other christians of a different sect.

The second argument is that he simply lied about his faith to earn public support. There are so many things wrong with that argument I could fill pages and pages refuting it. At face value it seems like a logical one and many political figures do indeed put on a observant religious face in public. In Hitlers case his beliefs were established long before his entrance into politics. His seminal writings in mein Kampf which contained all his personal beliefs confirmed his beliefs throughout. This is not a case of somebody finding religion on the campaign but of somebody who has had it throughout their life. He was such an egotistical megalomaniac that he wanted to bend all Germany to his personal beliefs. If he was truly Atheist or non-religious then he would have made a concentrated effort to alter German society (in the same manner he did political beliefs and anti-semitism) to abandon the church. He was responsible for putting prayer back into schools, of particular note since in your country the removal of prayer from schools is often cited as a reason for the "moral decline in society".

Now last but not least is the fact that even if Hitler wasn't a true christian, German society at that time was indeed a christian one. They weren't a theocracy but so what? Neither is America but how many Americans would call their nation a christian one even today? He didn't commit his deeds alone and he got a lot of people to participate willingly.

Far from your assertion that Hitlers christianity is based entirely on my opinion and hersey all I have on my side is actual factual evidence. To refute it you have to ignore mountains of evidence. In fact if Hitler had not done what he did there do you really think people would have looked at the evidence and still doubted his christianity?

I think not.

[commanderkai]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Yeah, you often pull that crap. Claim "to much to go through" then run off. Par for the course with you.

Yes. You go on tangents, and I ignore them. Now, after this post, I'll ignore you, and save myself petty personal attacks and insults from you.

$1:

Non-existent to you and your right wing troll chums. I get lots of support from the lefties on the site.

Those lefties who support you should find better company. There are more intelligent and articulate lefties on this site, especially those that don't fill their arguments with anti-Christian and anti-Semitic ramblings.

$1:

As for you well, judging by your constant stream of neg rep points and the comments you make on so many other peoples profiles you seem to do all your personal attacks that way just as you started it up with me.

Sigh. You hold a grudge from a neg rep I gave up years ago. Grow up. I have never made comments on anybody's profile however, but yes, I've given neg reps, and oh shit, people neg repped me back and they moved on. You're the only one who hasn't.

$1:

For someone who claims to be despise historical revisionism you certainly have no problem engaging in holocaust revisionism because you are motivated to eliminate and/or minimize any possible links to christianity.

I have never committed Holocaust or historical revisionism. Historical relativism maybe, but never revisionist history. Saying that Hitler wasn't a Christian, or, my actual argument of Christianity not being the prime motivation for the Holocaust is not revisionist history.


P.S. To everybody else on this site. I apologize for encouraging Derby's behavior through a response. It will not happen again, to a wondrous feature of this site that I will now utilize.

[DerbyX]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Yes. You go on tangents, and I ignore them. Now, after this post, I'll ignore you, and save myself petty personal attacks and insults from you.

No. You post garbage then insinuate things that aren't true.

commanderkai commanderkai:

Those lefties who support you should find better company. There are more intelligent and articulate lefties on this site, especially those that don't fill their arguments with anti-Christian and anti-Semitic ramblings.

Like this garbage. In all my posts other then criticizing Israel I have never spoken out against Jews. In fact virtually all the criticism I post about Israel I can find support for by Jews. Kinda torpedoes your hysterical belief that any criticism of Israel must therefore mean the person hates Jews. I might also point out that your anti-muslim rhetoric is at least one reason you shill for Israel and seem to support any and all violence against them. As for being anti-christian well to that end I certainly am although I don't support the level of violence against them that you and your christian buddies support against muslims.

Its not a coincidence.

commanderkai commanderkai:

Sigh. You hold a grudge from a neg rep I gave up years ago. Grow up. I have never made comments on anybody's profile however, but yes, I've given neg reps, and oh shit, people neg repped me back and they moved on. You're the only one who hasn't.

First off zippy they are indeed a personal attack which is exactly what you claimed you don't do. Second it seems you do it with fair frequency. Third, you do indeed leave comments on peoples profiles because those neg reps contain those comments. Don't cry about personal attacks against you when you go out of your way to do just that.

commanderkai commanderkai:

I have never committed Holocaust or historical revisionism. Historical relativism maybe, but never revisionist history. Saying that Hitler wasn't a Christian, or, my actual argument of Christianity not being the prime motivation for the Holocaust is not revisionist history.

Yes you have and Mustang1 called you on it. Claiming uncertainty in the means and motives of the holocaust is historical revisionism as is denying the factual evidence of Hitlers christianity. You engaged in this for 1 reason and 1 reason only in that you cannot stand the idea of your religion being tied to the holocaust. You are "revising" the historical record surrounding those 2 things ergo you are engaging in historical revisionism.

'nuff said.

Oh, btw. Just as I'm sure you have received the same I get PMs from people who both encourage my efforts and congratulate me on debating right-wingers such as yourself. You'd be surprised just how well a lot of them are thought of.

See you in the ignore file.

[bootlegga]

DerbyX DerbyX:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Dragom Dragom:

Wait, why can't Saudi-Arabia become the lynch pin of the Middle-East again? They have the money and the oil.

Because other than oil, they have nothing in the form of an economy. No industry, nothing. Turkey, on the other hand, is modernizing quickly and building an industrial base and is already the world's 17th largest economy. Basedon their current growth, they could reach the top 10 by 2040, which is when he predicts this conflict may occur. Friedman also mentions other possible 'leaders' of Islam (Iran and Egypt), but discounts them both because of their terrible economies, as well as the fact that Iran is already a pariah.

Why should the islamic world need a leader anyway? Turkey would do "the islamic world" a giant favour be not trying to speak for the islamic world and instead just be an example of a modern country with a majority of muslims living a modern and peaceful life.

I never said they should be the leader of the Muslim world, just that Friedman predicts they will be.

Frankly, it's in the best interests of the USA (and Canada as a corollary) for no one to lead the Muslim world. As long as they are busy fighting each other, they will have no resources to try and supplant the US as a global hegemon.

[Brenda]

I rather have Turkey "lead the muslim world" than Saudi Arabia... Why? because Turkey has a secular government...

[bootlegga]

Well, Friedman predicts they will move away from being totally secular and move more towards a new Muslim run government, like the Ottoman Empire, with the capital shifting back in Istanbul, not Ankara.

[Brenda]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Well, Friedman predicts they will move away from being totally secular and move more towards a new Muslim run government, like the Ottoman Empire, with the capital shifting back in Istanbul, not Ankara.

Nvm then

I think I share the "the muslim world doesnt need a leading country"-opinion

Friedman might be right although it depends on how bad Turkey wants to become part of the EU...

[fifeboy]

DerbyX DerbyX:

angler57 angler57:

Being part of any belief group is not just a thing that happens when you are born. Many of us attend church. And are believers.
I know Jews who have never been in temple. Catholic who don't attend mass. And,
even Southern Baptist that do not attend church.
Hitler a Christian? Yes he was born into a Christian family.
That no more makes him a religious man than standing in a garage will make you a car.

First off, being religious or not being religious isn't the same as saying somebody isn't a christian. I know plenty of people who are christian yet not religious, ie they attend church very infrequently, don't say grace, pray daily or otherwise do religious stuff. Doesn't change their beliefs though.

The fact here however is that he did. In addition to being born, baptised, and raised christian he was an alter boy for years. He took part in the holy communion when he was 15 and the holy communion is a very important event in catholicism. Its an affirmation of belief. As an adult he studied to join the priesthood.

At this point how can you draw any other conclusion as to what faith he held?

There are 2 main arguments that attempt to invalidate Hitlers christianity; 1 is that his acts alone mean he wasn't a christian. Its a circular logic fallacy that states that since christians don't commit bad acts of this nature anybody committing them cannot be a christian. Quite the racket. On one hand christians can sit back and attack other faiths for the awful things their adherents do and then sit back and smugly claim nobody of their faith does such things and when you illustrate with examples that yes they do they simply state that the people aren't "truly christian".

In fact that argument was made by CDN_PATRIOT which started this whole thing again. He claimed that christians weren't flying planes into buildings implying that it was only muslims acting badly to which I illustrated that contrary to his belief christians were committing other atrocities. The fact is that christians can and do commit atrocities but it doesn't change their beliefs in the divinity of JC which is pretty much the defining christian belief and from where the name "christianity" is drawn. Both the jewish faith and muslim faith believe that JC existed and both of them believe in the biblical god yet neither of them believe in his divinity. He is the second highest prophet in islam to boot but christian doctrine states that only by accepting JC as the lord/saviour and into your hearts is the path to salvation and nothing else. No lifetime of good deeds is sufficient to earn eternal salvation and all the worst murdering raping thieving human being has to do is accept JC into their hearts and beg forgiveness and they earn salvation. How certain are you that is not what happened to Hitler? The best you can possibly say is that he didn't act the way you think a christian should. I've already posted evidence showing that in fact there are lots and lots of christians who claim that other christians aren't true christians because they belong to a particular denomination or sect so christian credibility in determining who is christian is sorely lacking. Even christians who live a pious and religious life are called non-christians or untrue christians by other christians of a different sect.

The second argument is that he simply lied about his faith to earn public support. There are so many things wrong with that argument I could fill pages and pages refuting it. At face value it seems like a logical one and many political figures do indeed put on a observant religious face in public. In Hitlers case his beliefs were established long before his entrance into politics. His seminal writings in mein Kampf which contained all his personal beliefs confirmed his beliefs throughout. This is not a case of somebody finding religion on the campaign but of somebody who has had it throughout their life. He was such an egotistical megalomaniac that he wanted to bend all Germany to his personal beliefs. If he was truly Atheist or non-religious then he would have made a concentrated effort to alter German society (in the same manner he did political beliefs and anti-semitism) to abandon the church. He was responsible for putting prayer back into schools, of particular note since in your country the removal of prayer from schools is often cited as a reason for the "moral decline in society".

Now last but not least is the fact that even if Hitler wasn't a true christian, German society at that time was indeed a christian one. They weren't a theocracy but so what? Neither is America but how many Americans would call their nation a christian one even today? He didn't commit his deeds alone and he got a lot of people to participate willingly.

Far from your assertion that Hitlers christianity is based entirely on my opinion and hersey all I have on my side is actual factual evidence. To refute it you have to ignore mountains of evidence. In fact if Hitler had not done what he did there do you really think people would have looked at the evidence and still doubted his christianity?

I think not.

Wow! Funny thing is I am a Christian (Catholic). Sad thing is how ashamed I am of the actions taken by my church in recent times and by the actions of some Christians, now and in the past.

[2Cdo]

fifeboy fifeboy:

Wow! Funny thing is I am a Christian (Catholic). Sad thing is how ashamed I am of the actions taken by my church in recent times and by the actions of some Christians, now and in the past.

Funny thing is I am a Canadian and I am ashamed of the actions of some of my fellow Canadians now and in the past.

See how ridiculous that looks. Why should you be ashamed for actions others took.

[fifeboy]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Wow! Funny thing is I am a Christian (Catholic). Sad thing is how ashamed I am of the actions taken by my church in recent times and by the actions of some Christians, now and in the past.

Funny thing is I am a Canadian and I am ashamed of the actions of some of my fellow Canadians now and in the past.

See how ridiculous that looks. Why should you be ashamed for actions others took.

Because, as a part of the Church, it (choose your action here: Child abuse in Church, Christians and ethnic cleansing, Christians and racial inequality etc, etc, etc) reflects on me and my beliefs.