0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Funny one of the Monks was telling me that, Hitler took the name ´third reich´ From revelations to, The thrid reign, Clearly Hitler thought he was Jesus or somthing and that his mission was to bring into being in a new era: It is quite clear that if hitler worked for anyone it was Satan- and the politics of hate!
Quote from: jolly on 25/06/2007 14:41:27Funny one of the Monks was telling me that, Hitler took the name ´third reich´ From revelations to, The thrid reign, Clearly Hitler thought he was Jesus or somthing and that his mission was to bring into being in a new era: It is quite clear that if hitler worked for anyone it was Satan- and the politics of hate! Just for clarification: The Nazi Party used the terms Drittes Reich (Third Empire) and Tausendjähriges Reich ("Thousand-Year Realm/Empire") to describe the greater German ethnic empire they wished to forge. The term Third Reich referred to the Nazi recognition of former incarnations of important German realms, the first being the Holy Roman Empire and the second being the German Empire) while alluding to envisioned future prosperity and the new nation's alleged destiny. The Holy Roman Empire, deemed the First Realm or First Reich of the German people, had lasted almost a thousand years from 843 to 1806. The term Tausendjähriges Reich was used only briefly and dropped from propaganda in 1939, officially to avoid mockery and possibly to even avoid religious connotations. In speeches, books and articles about the Third Reich after 8 May 1945, the phrase has taken on a new meaning and the early Nazi professions about a "thousand year" empire are often juxtaposed against the twelve years that the Third Reich actually existed.Also: Hitler advocated a "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews. It's almost certain that he believed in Christ, but it's highly unlikely that he thought himself to be Jesus.
Fram an aethiest standpoint I see the same problems that Jolly does. An example I saw recently was an American fundamentalist Christian organisation that was funding a radical Jewish organisation who were trying to take teh Temple Mount back from the Muslims. The American's were happy to admit that there only interest was in trying to start a war, which they predicted the Jews woud win, because this was a necessary step to the second coming of Christ!Can anyone see how this sort of behaviour can possibly be considered moral?And yes, I'm agreeing with Jolly too! []
The story of Noah is good in that both the idea there was a flood and that there was as Noah and family and God and warlords... is all equally hard to believe from a science standpoint.
The version of the flood in the (much older) mesopotamian 'Gilgamesh' stories is much more fun. The Gods send the flood to kill all the people, not because they are corrupt or evil but simply because they are making too much noise!