Does it Matter that Hitler was a Theist?

[Pegg]

I did not conclude that these horrific punishments were not justified. I concluded that they were not morally justified.
This is based on your direct statements.

For Jews,
Eating shellfish is not immoral, and
Eating shellfish is a sin
Therefore sin and immorality are not equal.

morality includes obedience

to obey God is moral, to disobey is immoral. We are expected to obey him in small things as well as big things.
As Jesus said: “The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much.”—LUKE 16:10.

It may have seemed like a small thing to eat shellfish, but it was a matter of obedience to God. Just as it seems like a small thing for Adam to eat a piece of fruit from a tree....there is nothing immoral about eating fruit from a tree, but the issue there was disobedience which is a moral issue.

Sin is equal to opposition to god’s will.
Therefore immorality is not equal to opposition to god’s will.

opposition to God is immorality. Why? Because it is rebellion against authority.

If you are handed a fine by the traffic police, and you refuse to pay it what will happen? Will the police simply let it go? Doesnt matter because its only a traffic fine and its not immoral? No of course not. Your refusal to pay is evidence of opposition to their authority and that will land you in serious trouble. You may not be thinking it is 'immoral', but in fact is is immoral because morality is about what is right & just.... and it is right to respect and obey authority.

Yes, I accept your answer. In the thread I started regarding the subject http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/142076-new-covenent.html I held that in fact all the law was in fact applicable. It appears that the spirit gives different reqierments to different followers, even in Paul’s day. I’m not sure if I like your answer better or the answer I got there. That one seems more….god-like, but it is impossible to say mine, yours, or theirs is wrong, as the source is inconsistent. It’s just a matter of which verses the spirit tells you is the right one.

Thanks again.

If we trust and have faith that obedience to Jesus is the new requirement, then we would only need the laws found in the Greek scriptures.

I do trust that Jesus is the promised Messiah and for that reason i happily eat shellfish and pork and mix my fibers and work on sundays etc etc etc.

New sets of requirements...thats all it is .

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect Hitler was no Christian, but I also suspect he was a theist of one sort or another.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

morality includes obedience

to obey God is moral, to disobey is immoral. We are expected to obey him in small things as well as big things.
As Jesus said: “The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much.”—LUKE 16:10.

It may have seemed like a small thing to eat shellfish, but it was a matter of obedience to God. Just as it seems like a small thing for Adam to eat a piece of fruit from a tree....there is nothing immoral about eating fruit from a tree, but the issue there was disobedience which is a moral issue.

This seems rather circular. You stated the laws was black and white. You stated not all the OT laws were immoral. I asked you to if you might be able to share with me a few scriptures that would tell me how I knew which were and which were not. You indicated I should be able to figure it out.

We went on to discuss shellfish. You stated it was a sin for Jews to eat shellfish, but it was not immoral. I used logical forms, based on your statements, to conclude that sin and immorality are not one and the same.

Now you tell me it was immoral for the jews to eat shellfish.

I thought I had reached a coherent understanding of sin and morality. I must excuse myself. My lack of understanding necessitates a brief meditation.

Thanks you for your comments.

 

[Pegg]

This seems rather circular. You stated the laws was black and white. You stated not all the OT laws were immoral.

let me clear this up....

If God requires anything in particular of us, and we disobey, it is immoral regardless of what it is.
Why?
Because 'disobedience' is immoral.


Noah did not have the requirement of the Mosaic law because he lived long before it was given...so the laws about eating shellfish did not apply to him. It was not immoral for him to eat shellfish at that time.

But Isreal were given a set of laws...obedience to those laws was paramount. Disobedience to the laws was disobedience to God...and that is what is immoral.

I asked you to if you might be able to share with me a few scriptures that would tell me how I knew which were and which were not. You indicated I should be able to figure it out.

We went on to discuss shellfish. You stated it was a sin for Jews to eat shellfish, but it was not immoral. I used logical forms, based on your statements, to conclude that sin and immorality are not one and the same.

'obedience' is moral
disobedience is immoral.

If God gives you a specific requirement not to wear a hat on your head, and if you disobey, that is immoral.

Do you understand that what im trying to say is that 'obedience' is the principle which determines what is moral or immoral?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Ever heard of rationalization?

We are very much in agreement on this subject in general.

I would also like to point out that when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf he was in jail and trying to convince the German people to follow him. So he used Christian language. Later, his writings were much less Christian, some say even anti-Christian. He no longer needed the support of Christians for his power grab.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Do you understand that what im trying to say is that 'obedience' is the principle which determines what is moral or immoral?

Em, I think I understand.

So if obedience is the principle behind moral and immoral, that means when my I tell my daughter not to eat a cookie, and she disobeys me, she is immoral. Makes sense looking at "honor they mother and father."

Thanks again.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

We are very much in agreement on this subject in general.

I would also like to point out that when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf he was in jail and trying to convince the German people to follow him. So he used Christian language. Later, his writings were much less Christian, some say even anti-Christian. He no longer needed the support of Christians for his power grab.

I tend to agree with these views. But I don't think Hitler is the key to what happened. Yes he was compass. But it was the religious fervor of a nation, ready, willing, and able, to accept a divine instrument to redeem themselves, that was instrumental.

On the one hand they had been rather shabbily dealt with after WWI, they were in disgrace, not entirely unjustified, but far from entirely justified, and they were greatly suffering economically for it. They saw they way they were treated as unchristian and many of them questioned god and asked him to help them and redeem them. If it wasn't Hitler, it could easily have been someone else. He did not create the opportunity, he took it. Many of the atrocities happened because he needed to fulfill the indignation of the people. Not that any one of them considered genocide, but the that's were divine justification leads. By the time he had them where he no longer needed them, it was too late.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I tend to agree with these views. But I don't think Hitler is the key to what happened. Yes he was compass.

I agree with you also.