A couple authors have answered your questions much better than I could. I recommend Mere Christianity by CS Lewis and Case for Christ/Case for Faith by Lee Strobel.
I would say you are showing an extreme lack of knowledge about 20th century German history. Hitler never got a majority of votes. He demanded one ministry, Interior, which put him in charge of the police. The first act was to outlaw the Socialist and Communist parties, close down all dissident newspapers that had written the editorials, outlaw trade unions that had struck, outlaw feminist and gay organizations, censor the arts. Have you heard about the Hamburg dock workers, who threw munitions destined for the Spanish fascists, into the ocean? Have you heard about White Rose? About the underground railroad that smuggled dissenters, Jews and leftists out of the country? And to say the "Tea Party" is some sort of antidote is beyond absurd. To fight something, for one thing, you need some knowledge. The fact that their candidate did not get elected president is not the same as Nazism. The "tea party" is another incarnation of the pseudo-populist nativist far right movement that has existed in this country for 150 years, off and on, has no program, no historical knowledge, spurred into hysteria by a black president of "their" (white) America and battened on by those making millions of dollars selling bunkum. They have nothing in common with those who risked their lives for others.
Perhaps. Mine is only from books I've read on the subject, not from first-hand accounts. Yet I'd submit that I've read a lot more of what went into the Rise of the Nazi Party than most. I don't think I'm showing a lack, though You are correct, and I should have written it better. He was always second in the Presidency to Hindenburg, who was far into his dotage and ruling throught the Reichstag. However, the Nazi party received the 2nd-most votes (and therefore, Reichstag seats) in the 1930 election and the most votes of any party in both the 1932 elections and 1933, allowing him to control the Reichstag. I'm not sure this timeline is right...he was not a part of the executive government (Hindenburg was President, Papen was Chancellor) until Hitler was appointed Chancellor. He appointed Frick Interior Minister after he was given Chancellorship. Since he'd been voted a majority of the Reichstag (between the Nazis and the KPD) he was able to pass the "Enabling Act", which allowed him many of the powers he used to do the things you jsut brought up. I didn't know of the White Rose. I had to look them up on wikipedia. I'm not sure that their example of standing up to Hitler in 1943 is what I was talking about when you brought up the Jewish examples. So you say, but you don't seem to care about seeing anything other than what Olbermann and his ilk have to say. I'd say you have a fundamentally odd view of people in the Tea Party, if you think that a) they've had a presidential candidate (since the term was coined in April 2009), and if you think that people have no historical knowledge (I'd submit you've never seen a Glenn Beck program, or else you'd disagree with yourself, since he basically teaches history on his show) and couldn't care less if the person in office who's adding trillions to the deficit and lying about campaign promises based not on policies but on "hope and change" was black, red, white, woman, gay or otherwise. The first Tea Parties were in opposition to TARP, which was signed by Bush. I know that doesn't agree with the liberal media view of them as modern-day KKK members, but it's true nonetheless.
How'd we get to Hitler, btw? Was this your reply to my post about "I think the degradation of great societies historically has come from the move from "service" to "serve me", and that's one thing I personally fight against"?
The Bible never says that it does. People have misinterpreted verses relating to human perception of celestial movement (sun moving across the sky, sun standing still for 24 hours) as Biblical astronomical doctrine. At the time, anything with wings was "scientifically" classified as a bird. Is it the Bible's fault that modern taxonomy has changed the classifications from what they were at the time of the writing? And actually, the word used literally means "owner of a wing" which while imprecise, is not at all inaccurate.
Well, it is true that "faith" plays a part in the Christian religion. However, thus far the Bible has yet to be proven wrong, and the fact that thus far it's hundreds of prophecies are 100% spot on is a good indicator. The odds of that are nearly, if not, uncalcuable by humans or machines.
Further, different types of institutions have different rules. I've never come across a person who was jailed for walking off the job, but in the military, desertion can be a capital offense. Just the way it is.
Yes. My point was not that the military is exactly like every other institution and therefore if the military makes a decision it applies simultaneously to the rest of the country. My point was that the military tends to be (to put it gently) slower to adapt to social change, and that if you are behind the military on something, you are pretty far behind. barfo
I guess I have no right to even be here. If Brian is correct, if his views become the law, I will be put to death. Because every word of the bible is correct. According to Brian. And only his interpretation counts.
Yes, very. My moral and ethical values say you should have had some wedding cake, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to ban you. Having keilbasa before wedding cake is an outrage. barfo
And my point is that just because religious institutions have chosen not to adopt the same regulatory changes that other institutions--including the military--have, it doesn't mean they're "behind" them. Oh, and BTW, despite their intended retraction of DADT, the military still has some pretty strict no fraternization policies. They still very much care what happens in the bedroom.
And, I don't mean to sound crude at this, so please excuse me...but who exactly are you to interpret my faith for me? I told you what I believe and my worldviews. I've politely responded to the attacks about my education and philosophies, and attempted to refute much of the unfounded opinion with some semblance of truth and reason. And it devolves into anecdotes about cousins and hyperbole over cherry-picked pseudo-biblical talking points? Where does that come from?
