I mean, Good and Bad are relative. So, when American soldiers kill Iraqi civilians, that's OK. When Bin Laden destroys WT Centre, that's bad? I mean, how do you define a universal moral principle?
You don't. You simply attempt to live your life without intentionally harming others. Of course, this would require a chain reaction across all peoples, we would need to be unified on the concept of not harming one another. Therein lies the problem, the perception of Good and Bad are relative as in your examples.
That is the problem. SOME folks will deny to accept to be united with *us*, on the subject of 'the concept of not harming one another'
Of course not, when you create an "us" and "them" environment, you've already alienated others.
Some people will just tell you they don't like to be united with your universal agenda
In other words, they DO wish to go out intentionally harming others? If so, why would you believe that?
Yes, they may hurt others. That is what police do, soldiers do, don't they? What are you going to do when they deny your peace agenda?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
It's difficult to have that. That is it.
The thing is, police will open fire on you if you are breaking law, and trying to escape. A soldier has free license to kill anyone during war. What are you going to do to them?
Playing devils advocate, what if intentionally harming 1 person (say Adolf Hitler) could save the lives of millions of people? If you intentionally harm him, that invalidates your moral principle. If you don't, isn't that the equivalent of harming millions of people?
Stopping Hitler from harming millions of people does not mean one has to resort to harming him. There are many alternatives to harming others.
Fair enough. Putting that moral principle to the test a bit more. Someone knows the location of a nuclear device set to go off in New York. We've exhausted every avenue of enquiry and failed to get the location. There is not enough time to evacuate the city. We know we can get the location by torturing the person. If we do it, we've deliberately harmed an individual. If we don't we've wiped out New York. What do we do?
Hey man it's a thought experiment. I know it because it's one of the parameters I choose to be part of the experiment
If it makes it any better, let's say we've done a psyche evaluation and the conclusion is that there is a 96.2% chance this person will cooperate under torture conditions. Do we torture him to get the location of the bomb?
Suppose, he is your brother -- will you still torture him? It's relative. LOLOLOLOL
What I find interesting is that such thought experiments must be created with very specific conditions contained within an extremely rare scenario in order to attempt to refute a claim, even when the conditions aren't necessarily going to work and other alternatives are not presented.
So, if we were talking about percentages and comparing your thought experiment to the real world, the scenario would have a.00000000000000000000000000001% of ever occurring and even smaller percentage of having to use harm or violence as a working solution.
You have proposed a moral principle: "live your life without intentionally harming others". I'm examining the consequences of applying that moral principle to a given scenario. The specific scenario is irrelevant. The important part is the question posed by it: what do you do when alternatives have failed or are unavailable, and failing to intentionally harm someone will result in harm to yourself or others? If you suggest there are no real-life scenarios like this, then I'm sorry but I won't be able to take you seriously.
The conclusion I draw is that your moral principle would not be the right behaviour in certain circumstances. And that's what I see as the problem with absolute moral principles. There are always exceptional circumstances. To address that you would have to change your principle to: live your life without intentionally harming others (unless harming others is necessary to prevent harm to yourself or others, and all alternatives have failed or are unavailable to you).
Maybe this shows it's not that that helpful to be prescriptive when dealing with moral codes. Perhaps generic principles that instil in people the ability to make ethical decisions would be more useful. That way it doesn't matter what the scenario is. People would be equipped to make ethical judgements in any given situation.
There may be some extremely rare scenario like the one you've conjured, which is why I can't take it seriously. Nor, have you offered any alternatives that you consider would have failed or are unavailable, you have immediately offered torture as your one and only solution.
Perhaps, you're confusing the concept of defending oneself from harm as opposed to intentionally harming others. Don't you think there is a difference or is it all the same?
The only difference between intentionally harming someone in self-defence and doing so for another reason is your motivation. Your motivation depends on the circumstances. So the most you can say is: live your life without intentionally harming others, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. Is that useful as a moral principle? Should we be looking for moral principles that apply in all circumstances? Are there any moral principles that can be applied in all circumstances? Is universal application a useful criteria anyway? Or should we be pragmatic and go for what makes sense in the most likely circumstances? If so does that mean it's okay to act immorally when faced with an unlikely circumstance? Isn't that just moral relativism, which is where we came in?
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza . . .
Sorry, I don't buy that. Motivations are intrinsic or extrinsic having to do with goals and rewards.
If everyone held that concept, there would be no need for whatever circumstances would arise, such as your torture example.
Not intentionally doing harm to others IS pragmatic and makes sense.
Not moral relativism, but perhaps more along the lines of Moral Realism.
Of course. Not sure of the relevance here.
Even if everyone is capable of understanding and living by this moral principle (which they are not) it only applies in cases of malicious intentional harm. For all other cases: self-defence, protection of others, certain (consensual) acts for personal pleasure etc. it's absurd. Should a moral principle be absurd in certain circumstances, or is that a sign that it's not a very good principle? It's all about those shades of grey (so to speak).
Even if that's the case, the question is, should that be the criteria for moral principles? What about consistency? The principle being universally applicable? Shouldn't that be a criteria? This principle doesn't meet that criteria.
Whether intentionally harming others is bad behaviour, is relative to the specific context and various other considerations. It's not based on an absolute truth. It's classic moral relativism.
Motivation is not the correct word here, that's the relevance.
And, why not?
And, why is it absurd? What shades of grey?
Why doesn't it meet the criteria?
No, it isn't. It's moral realism.
Self defence is just an instance of causing intentional harm within a specific context (being attacked) while acting with a specific motive (preventing yourself being attacked). A surgeon cutting open a patient with a scalpel is another instance of intentional harm. A mugger beating up a victim is another. The difference between these is the context and immediate motivations of the actors.
What about the mentally ill? What about the plain stupid? Why do you think everyone would be capable of understanding this principle?
According to this moral principle it's wrong to vaccinate a toddler with a needle injection, because the temporary pain they feel makes it intentional harm. Don't you think that's absurd?
Because it doesn't make sense under all circumstances. Why do you think it does?
Doesn't look like it. Which moral fact(s) is/are this principle based on?
Sorry Don, but motive is not the correct word. Try again.
Because it's a very simple thing to understand.
Doctors can administer needles without feeling any pain.
Because it's very simple to understand and live ones life by. There's nothing complicated about it at all. You seem to be under the illusion that not doing harm intentionally means no harm will every befall others. There are people killed every day on highways and streets in car accidents in which a great deal of harm comes to them, but that harm was never intentional.
It's isn't based on any particular moral principle, never said it was.
Unnecessary. I think it's okay to just disagree.
Some people can't understand simple ideas. It's a shame, but true.
And you seem to be under the illusion that all intentional harm is bad behaviour. It isn't. I could cut your leg off to cause you pain, or do it to save your life. Either way I'm intentionally harming you. Only difference is that one is intentionally harming for good reason. So intentional harm is not necessarily bad behaviour. It's the reason for doing it that makes it bad or good.
Well that's what moral realism is. The idea that moral facts exist. Moral realism arguments are then based on one or more of those moral facts. So if you are using moral realism as a term you apply to your own brand of moral philosophy, be aware that 'moral realism' is an actual thing, so that might cause some confusion.
So now, surgery is intentionally harming someone?
With moral realism, where two moral opinions or beliefs contradict one another, like your surgery example, one of them cannot be right.
Are you suggesting that deliberately cutting someone's leg off is not intentionally causing them harm?
There are no moral opinions or beliefs in moral realism. That's ethical subjectivism. In moral realism, moral propositions are considered to be objective facts, independent of opinion. That's why I asked which moral fact(s) your principle was based on. If your principle depends on opinion, then technically it is a type of ethical subjectivism, specifically moral relativism.
No, but you appear to be claiming surgery is intentional harm.
Harming people is not an opinion or belief, it is a fact.
Doesn't matter what label you give it, cutting off someone's leg is causing them intentional harm. What determines whether that action is good or bad behaviour?
Yes but is it a moral fact, i.e. is intentional harm intrinsically bad or good?
Surgery is NOT intentional harm. It is intentional, but not with intention to harm, the intention is to heal. Surgery is incidental harm.
Deliberately removing someone's leg is causing intentional harm. It may be the case that the immediate harm you cause leads to some greater benefit, and that greater benefit may be your ultimate intention, but when you apply blade to limb, for that moment you are doing so with the intention of causing immediate harm.
Nonsense, ones intention is not to cause harm when knowingly thinking of some greater benefit, but instead to help the harm that gave rise to the limb requiring amputation.
Nope. Harm is to cause a person injury, hurt, damage, pain etc. When you remove someone's leg, you are causing damage. The fact you have ultimately good intentions does not change the fact that to achieve those intentions you must cause immediate harm. That principle is expressed in the old saying, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.
Not if you're removing the leg because its' already damaged, which is obviously the reason it's being removed. It's ridiculous to consider surgery intentionally damaging.
Sorry, but surgery is not intentional harm, no matter how many times you wish to repeat it.
No. Counter intuitive based on everyday experience perhaps, but not ridiculous. Surgery ultimate involves damaging healthy skin, muscle, bone etc. usually (but not always) for a greater benefit. It would be impossible to remove a leg without damaging the adjoining healthy tissue.
All surgery involves deliberately causing harm. In the case of open surgery, it's impossible without deliberately causing harm. In some cases that harm is incidental because the ultimate intention is to heal. In other cases, it's not. If you disagree, that's fine, we disagree.
You're not intending to harm them, you're intending to remove their leg. That's what anesthesiologists are for.
No way. Perhaps you don't understand the word (intentional - done on purpose; deliberate). When the intention is to heal, one has good intention. The harm from surgery is incidental. If the intent is to help then harm is no intended, but incidental. Surgery has incidental harm.
Nope. Only by knowing the ultimate intention can we determine whether that immediate harm is incidental. If the ultimate intention is to heal, then the immediate harm becomes incidental. If the ultimate intention is to hurt, then the immediate harm is not incidental. But it's a moot point anyway. In both cases you are intentionally causing immediate harm, i.e. deliberately (just in case you don't understand the word ). If you deliberately cause harm with the ultimate intention of healing, we can describe that as good behaviour, and the harm can be considered incidental. If you deliberately cause harm with the ultimate intention of hurting, we can describe that as bad behaviour, and the harm cannot be considered incidental.
In either case, the thing that determines whether causing deliberate harm is good or bad behaviour, is the ultimate intention (and probably the outcome too).
Yes, I think your getting it In the case of surgery we know the ultimate intention is to heal therefore the harm is incidental and not with intent to hurt or intentional harm.
Almost. Whether healing is the ultimate intention of surgery depends on the surgeon. If the surgeon is someone like Dr. Aribert Heim who carried out surgical experiments for the SS in Germany, then healing may not be the ultimate intention. So surgery is not intrinsically good. Only the ultimate intention of the surgeon determines that.
But for sake of argument let's say we know the ultimate intention of our surgeon is to heal. As we've said, that can only be achieved by intentionally causing harm (albeit incidental). So we have a situation where intentionally causing harm is an aspect of good behaviour. Therefore the moral principle originally proposed which started this discussion - live your life without intentionally harming others - needs to be altered to work. Something like, live your life with the ultimate intention of not harming others. The problem is that makes it so vague, it's effectively useless.
No, I don't think so, because surgery in not intentional harm because the intention of surgery in not to harm. Surgery's intention is to heal and any harm is incidental.
If the surgeon is someone like Dr. Aribert Heim who carried out experiments for the SS in Germany, then healing may not be the ultimate intention. Only the ultimate intention of the surgeon determines whether surgery is good behaviour.
Is surgery bad behavior?
Intentional harm can only be considered bad, that's the point, it's an intention to do harm to others.
That's your opinion which you are entitled to. Naturally I disagree.
Depends. If the reason is to maintain or improve the wellbeing of the subject, then no. If the reason is to conduct some hideous experiment that will be detrimental to the subject, then yes. So what determines whether surgery is good or bad behaviour?
Nope. Your ultimate intention may be to ensure someone's well being, but in order to do that you might need to do immediate harm. Even though that's not your ultimate intention, that immediate harm is intentional, i.e. done deliberately will a full understanding of the immediate damage it will cause. Or to put it another way: even though your ultimate intention is to make a lovely omelette. You can only do so by causing intentional harm to some eggs.
So, politely requesting that he stop the insanity might have worked? Man, where were you during the World War? If only the Allied Powers had been privy to such sage wisdom. Think of the lives that could have been saved.
I see you continue to put words in others mouths to support your arguments. Well done.
Well, your statement was pretty pointless and self serving. So, a flippant response seemed appropriate. If you would be so kind as to explain how anyone in opposition to Hitler could have formulated a plan to help him stop harming others, which didn't also include either a plan to put his health and well being in jeopardy or acquiescing to his desire to dominate? The more detailed the better since between all of the world powers of that time no one came up with a grand solution. You could be doing the world a humongous favor by offering a detailed map to reference if we are faced with such a problem again.
Flippant responses are your forte, they have nothing to do with me.
Again, there are alternatives to harming people. If you don't believe there are, then I suspect the first thing you'd do is drop a bomb, yes?
I don't, presently, own any bombs so no; that isn't an option I have access to. But, seriously. Are you so naive as to think all global solutions can always be void of violence?
You claim a 'do no harm' philosophy. Sometimes, doing nothing is, itself, harmful and breeds violence by its very use. How many have starved in North Korea because of sanctions? How many have died from genocides within the borders of nations because the world chose to do nothing? How many Kurds were poisoned because no one would act?
As long as governments will choose violence, violence will exist. And, unfortunately the choice to react with violence is sometimes necessary to either stop it, or stop it from spreading.
I only support the notion of war when its only goal would be to save lives that would be lost otherwise.
Nowhere near as naive as someone who believes global solutions require violence.
How said anything about doing nothing? Oh yes, YOU did. And, you came up with an argument to support what YOU said. lol
Obviously, someone was acting if those events took place. They too probably believed global solutions require violence.
Yes, I'm sure we could come up with plenty of reasons to use violence just as we can come up with plenty of reasons not.
I'm happy for you.
Another answer from you that is self serving and void of substance. Not surprising.
Another vacuous claim you are unable to show without using your own words to support it.
Our conversation began because you stated Stopping Hitler from harming millions of people does not mean one has to resort to harming him. There are many alternatives to harming others. I simply asked you how it would have been possible to implement a plan to stop Hitler that did not involve acquiescing to his desire to dominate, or involve putting his health or wellfare in jeopardy. If you are just talking to hear yourself talk, I get that. But, since you can't, or won't, back up your assertion with anything other than run around doublespeak you can't blame me for noticing.
I blame you for dishonestly putting words in my mouth.
That quote was a cut and paste from your post. Unless I'm sitting at your computer typing for you, your claim is bogus.
Unless, of course, you think you've been under some mind control spell. To which I'd have to respond .
Historically speaking, there was no way to stop Hitler without harming him. He seemed to lead some kind of charmed life until the end. He survived many attempts on his life, there is even a story of one time during WWI when he was in the trenches eating a meal with some fellow soldiers, then for no apparent reason got up and moved to another table. Moments later a bomb landed in the bunker and blew up the table he'd been sitting at, killing everyone at it.
And, like many of the Nazi leaders, he committed suicide rather than face capture. Even if someone could have gotten into his bunker and taken him, the only way to do it would have been to physically incapacitate him, which would have in all likelihood required harming him.
He could have been captured and incarcerated, and the war would have been over. Wasn't Hussein captured?
Yes, but that's not a realistic comparison. Hussein had Iraq, and not even all of Iraq, working for him. Htiler would have had all of Germany protecting him. They took their orders. And 1945 was a very different time than the early 21st century.
Besides, people did try to capture or kill Hitler. He escaped numerous assassination attempts. Tom Cruise, that great repository of historical knowledge, made that Valkyrie movie about the most famous of the attempts. Hussein I'm sure survived some, but Hitler really did seem to lead a charmed life.
I think a universal moral principle is that we should try to love all people. However, the realities of our world make this universal principle fail to prevail because circumstances differ in many instances. It's wrong for American soldiers to kill Iraqi civilians. The 911 tragedy was also wrong. However, there are complications in both situations. In Iraq if you refer to the invasion of Kuwait, a state of war was declared. It doesn't justify killing civilians but sadly, it is going to happen, as it did on both sides. Meaning, Kuwaiti citizens and Iraqi citizens. For the terrorists, there is also a state of war existing. making 911 occur as an act of Jihad. What is sad is, they deliberately targeted civilians, including many Muslims.
Regarding Adolf Hitler, you know, I was surprised at how beautiful his paintings were. I would have liked to keep some of them and hang them on my wall. He was not accepted in an art school though, because he couldn't paint the human body. It strikes me that the man behind the holocaust had this artistic gift. Still, there is no justification for what he did in his hope to create a superior Aryan race, which involved not just killing Jews but also disabled people, etc. who did not fit his vision of a perfect Aryan person.
If he had more love in him, Hitler could probably feel more sympathy for those who are less perfect, and not feel so angry by the fact that the Jews were so rich. I mean, Mitt Romney is extraordinarily rich and a lot of people are voting for him. Obama is far less rich, but still rich, and a lot of people are voting for him, too.
We don't have to be perfect people or saints, but if we -- Iraqis, terrorists, Americans, Filipinos (like me) and everyone else in the world and most especially politicians and civilians in political organizations could in their decisions, especially political decisions, tip the balance and decide to love, maybe there would be less need for states of war.
The point is that it is difficult to establish.
Hitler, if he were caught alive, would have been killed. Bin Laden, caught alive, was killed. If George W Bush were caught alive, SOME people would have killed him. It's all relative.
I understand what you are saying. However, there is a difference between situational ethics, and having a set of ethics that guide and direct your response per situation. Since we live in an imperfect world, a universal moral may exist, but oftentimes we have to make the best of the imperfections that life hands us, and our ethics guide and anchor our decisions and choices.
A universal moral does not exist. It's not possible to establish anything like that. How would you establish such a thing? Then you have to make a law, or something like that which forces people to observe morality.
Even if observing morality becomes a legal obligation, how would you implement that?
If it has to be established, made a law, or a legal obligation then it's not a universal moral. Universal morals have to be arrived at by choice. But I think universally, people want to love and be loved. That's why they make families. And that's just a portion of where love can extend to. It is a universal desire but it doesn't always drive people's choices, for individual reasons.
I agree that a moral foundation is difficult to establish in practice, but your example of relativism shows the weakness of such an approach.
All were guilty of crimes when seen through the eyes of one certain group or another.
But I would say that what Hitler, Bin Laden and Bush did were all wrong.
I'm an American. Heck, I'm even from Texas, but I'm disgusted with Bush and his family.
Invading Iraq was something they had wanted to do for a long time. They were itching to do it. WMDs was just a big lie. Even 9/11 was a big lie. It had nothing to do with Iraq.
When the world found this out, what did George W. do? He laughed!
Let that sink in for a moment!
George W. laughed. "What? No WMDs here. Hahahaha!"
And all the while our own troops were dying, and tens of thousands of men, women and children were dying in a war started on a batch of lies.
We didn't pull out and say "sorry!" No, Halliburton was installed and couldn't be removed! Dick Cheney's profits would dry up.
Jesus said something very simple and profound. You can judge a tree by the fruit it bears.
If a man creates death and destruction, then he is not an advocate of civilization. In fact, I'd dare say that he is an evil man.
And look what Obama has done. More of the same death and destruction. His sweet words do not change the actions into something "patriotic." Tyranny and murder are no better if you give them a sweet sounding name.
Moral relativisim is corrupt. What's good for the hunter isn't good for the duck.
But if we love one another. That's absolute. Anyone caught doing something incompatible with that is getting off track. When I yell at my nephew, I'm losing my cool (my love). I'm being impatient, rather than loving. With love, I would give of my time and talk to him. If I am selfish, then I will think my time is important and will become frustrated with my young nephews boyish destruction.
Moral relativism is not the answer. Love is.
Hitler personal habits makes me scared of people who think they are holier than others when they:
1)Are a vegetarian
I trust somebody who is a hard-drinking/chain-smoking swearing meat-eater better.
The problem isn't personal habits. It's ego.
Ego produces selfish fruit. Hitler murdered, lied and started wars.
You can know a tree by the fruit it bears.
Moral relativism tells us that what is good for the hunter is not necessarily good for the duck.
But love is the answer. Love is absolute and unconditional.
If Hitler had only love and no selfishness, what would he have done? What would his "fruit" have been?
Well, I've got three of your four most feared traits there (I eat meat) and I gotta say, are you crazy? (Of course, I mean that in the nicest possible way... ) You look at a literal handful of the man's outward habits and decide you'd rather trust people who go the other way? Mother Theresa didn't drink, smoke, or curse and I'd take her in a minute over Bill Clinton, who does all three. (That's not a political statement about Clinton, BTW. Substitute a name, Condoleeza Rice for instance, or Kennedy or Nixon or Roosevelt or Churchill.)
I don't know Chris, he may be onto something. When one tries to control his subconscious too much it rebels. I'll give some examples.
David Yonggi Cho
Jimmy Swaggart, Marvin Gorman, Jim and Tammy Bakker
This list goes on and on.
Okay, what about Manson? Bundy? Gacy?
I mean if that's your criteria, I got names too.
Look, I'm not at all saying Christians are more amoral than Atheists. I'm saying when one tries to hard to control all the impulses of the subconscious the subconscious tries harder to get what it wants and it also works the other way around as well. Party and act like a stupid for a while and you'll end up spending Sunday in Church.
Well, surely you don't think you're better/holier than others for not indulging
No, I don't. In fact, the teatotaling and non-smoking didn't come from being a Christian. I grew up in a house of smokers and just never had the desire (pretty good thing, too, since I'm mildly asthmatic.) And I just never enjoyed drinking. Being drunk is not a fun experience for me.
The cursing, on the other hand, I had to work at controlling. I'm certainly not any holier than anyone else.
Universal morals have already been established for people who have elevated themselves above barbarians.
Is it OK to do any of the following:
* Is it OK to murder?
* Is it OK to steal?
* Is it OK to lie?
* Is it OK to torture?
These things don't simply apply it to a world they apply to every generation born of human status.
Of course there will be people who will try and knit kick these issues to death but generally intelligent people will accept the idea that all of above is wrong to do.
* Is it OK to murder? = The police kills people if they are breaking laws and trying to escape etc.
* Is it OK to steal? = do you know what the government does with tax money?
* Is it OK to lie? = Watch any George W Bush speech
* Is it OK to torture? = Did you hear about guantanamo
Are these people BARBARIANS?
He was born and raised as a Catholic but later did not embrace any faith.
You mean that the man who has famously said the bigger the lie the more people will believe it should be believed about everything he wrote?
Sure he did. He did what he did to the Jews to get back at them for killing Jesus.
I think the whole Hitler deal was about having a choice between Hitler and Communism. At the time, Hitler didn't show his true colors, he unfolded them as he continued to gain power. The hatred of the Jews was more due to a general prejudice against the Jews, plus the fact that the Jews pretty much held the German economy at that time.
I didn't say he was a good Christian. Many Christians in Europe at that time disliked Jewish people for two reasons. 1. It was thought they were stalling the economy by holding onto their money. 2. Jesus was killed by Jews and many wanted revenge, Hitler thought he would be rewarded in heaven.
This is information from family who grew up in wartime Italy.
I was with you up to that last part. Hitler hated Christianity. H-A-T-E-D Christianity. This has been well documented, even as far back as the 1960's book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." He had plans drawn up to start destroying churches and would have started carrying that out had the allies not invaded Germany when they did.
He wasn't worried about Heavenly reward.
But yes, many Christians hated Jews, not least because of the reasons you stated.
Hitler did not hate Christianity, he hated the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and had plans to reorganize it from the top down.
Yes, he did. He also had plans to reorganize and control the Protestant church. That's why Boehnoffer was killed. And he did have plans to destroy churches. And he stated he hated Christianity. This is all a matter of historical record. Hitler (other than his baptism, maybe) had not a single truly Christian even in his life or in his soul.
Nazi General Gerhard Engel reported in his diary that in 1941 Hitler stated, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
There is a lot of conflicting information, but his actions against Jewish people and his reasons for those actions indicate he wanted revenge for the killing of Jesus. You may not see this as being Christian, but a follower of Jesus is a Christian.
I'm sorry but the overwhelming evidence is that Hitler hated Christianity. He had the Bible rewritten. He lied, often, openly and with gusto. To everyone and anyone. He didn't like Jesus and in the Nazi Bible had His Jewish roots removed. And he said he hated Christianity.
If Hitler ever said he was a Christian (and again, he was a practiced and professed liar, so I have no reason to doubt that he told many people he was Christian) it was a lie.
Then how do you know what his truth was? He said he was a Christian and his actions proved it. If he rewrote the bible with Jesus still in it, then he was a follower of Jesus.
Okay, this is getting a little heated.
I'm gonna break it off before I go off, but I gotta ask you one question: If being a liar and rewriting history are true marks of being a Christian, then why are your kids in Catholic school? Won't it teach them that this is acceptable, no, required behavior? Are you serious?
The Bible told us not to lie, that liars go to hell, but lying is what marks us as true Christians? So Hitler was therefore a true Christian? Are you really telling me that?
Oh, Chris, you are taking this personal. Don't do that. I didn't say he was a good Christian. He wasn't a good anything. A Christian is defined as a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings. I don't think he paid attention to the love part or the turn the other cheek part of his teaching. I mean no offence as I'm not associating you to him.
Why are my kids in a Catholic school? There are three reasons.
1. I went to Catholic publicly funded school and I don't mind being taught to love your neighbour. (lesser)
2. When I married my wife it was a promise I made. I keep promises. (more)
3. I live directly next to the school. (most )
It says in the Bible that if you change one little stroke, you're guilty.
Hitler changed more than that.
To be a follower of Jesus, you have to believe that what He said is true. That includes the parts about salvation for the Jews. A lot of people think they're Christians, a lot of people believe they're Christians, and a lot of people will stand face to face with Jesus and be told He never knew them. Hitler hated everything Jesus stood for. He hated Jews, he hated the church and he hated Christianity. These are statements he made and are a matter of public record. If you want to insist he was some kind of christian and followed Jesus, that's your choice but it's wrong. Naziism had very pronounced strains of Darwinian evolution, reincarnation and Neitzshein (sp?) hatred for weakness, and Nietzsche hated Christianity because it is "a religion of weaklings." Hitler wanted to take Germany back (and again, this is his phrase he used) to a pre-Christian era of blood and soil. I study Christianity and I've studied Hitler and it takes a fairly profound and rather stubbornly held misunderstanding of one or both to proclaim Hitler a Christian if you at all know the facts. And it ain't hard to find out. He took the crosses out of churches and replaced them with swastikas. That ain't Christianity in any way, shape, form or color. It's exactly, 180 degrees the opposite.
I'm sorry if I'm being a little strong, but this is not a matter of opinion. The facts are there.
Hitler also recommended babies be given milk instead of beer and he started the first anti-smoking campaigns. He also breathed oxygen and was a vegetarian.
He also built the autobahn.
He also decreed that all 'inferior' people, including the mentally retarded and physically deformed, should be killed.
So what's your point?
It's simple really, Hitler would say anything to forward his agenda, which sometimes led to positive as well as negative results. Arguing whether he was a real Christian or not is irrelevant considering Christians here on these forums argue exactly the same thing, with and at each other.
Is this topic serious? I am new to hubpages and assumed it was for good writers, but sorry - 'What kind on a man Adolf Hitler was???'
Shouldn't that read - 'What kind OF a man WAS Adolf Hitler???'
Sorry I don't mean to be offensive, but I expect correct, proper grammar!
A lot of people liked Hitler. Wasn't he on the cover of Time at one point? I think the power corrupted him, though he may have had okay intentions to begin with.
Your title kind of mislead me. But as I see how this is a discussion of the defintion between "good" and "bad," I'll chime in:
You are right in saying that this line is very arbitrary, and moves around a lot. I might think tax evasion is perfectly okay, but someone else might think it's not. Of course, we can have laws which define stuff like this. But in that regard, every country has different laws. I don't think it's okay to shoot someone in war, or in any situation. But if they are being attacked, lethally, I would assume that shooting is a prudent course of action. Bin Laden wasn't being attacked, so, in my mind, he was not right to kill all those people. They weren't attacking him.
We probably wouldn't have guns if everyone had the same definition of good and evil, am I right?
He was on the cover of Time but not because he was admired.
"On January 2, 1939, Time Magazine published its annual Man of the Year issue. For the year 1938, Time had chosen Adolf Hitler as the man who "for better or worse" (as Time founder Henry Luce expressed it) had most influenced events of the preceding year.
The cover picture featured Hitler playing "his hymn of hate in a desecrated cathedral while victims dangle on a St. Catherine's wheel and the Nazi hierarchy looks on." This picture was drawn by Baron Rudolph Charles von Ripper, a German Catholic who had fled Hitler's Germany."
I did not know that about the Time thing. Thanks for the interesting information, there!
Anyway, I truly believe at some point, some amount of people liked Hitler. He did, after all, rise to power somehow. It's hard to rise to power with no amount of likeability. I recall from a history class that the German people liked Hitler, at first. That he was a socialist that would bring them out of the struggles brought on by WWI. They, of course, eventually changed their minds.
by Cynicist7 years ago
vWe believe that Adolf Hitler spent His entire life in the service of the positive teachings of the Bible and that He fought and died to uphold the ideals and practices of positive Christianity.We believe that Adolf...
by paradigmsearch4 years ago
I submit this topic without comment..."Adolf Hitler is one of the most evil men to ever walk the face of the planet. He also happens to be a little boy in New Jersey. Adolf Hitler Campbell was taken away from his...
by Frank Sanello5 years ago
I removed the naughty words, I think, and HubPages still won't allow me to publish this article!It's difficult to comply with Hub censorship rules (automatic content filter) if I don't know what the rules are.I have...
by Jesus was a hippy4 years ago
Why do Christians love Adolf Hitler? Wasn't he evil?
by Phil Perez18 months ago
I'm doubtful of hearing about the concept of evil. I honestly don't know how to feel about the term. Mainly because I've come to realize that it sounds like you know right from wrong, good from bad, but you still choose...
by Antecessor6 years ago
Although some might counter that Hitler's admission to Christianity, by itself, does not make one a Christian, how else can an individual convey to another his religion except from their own confession? One of the...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.