Two more examples of Goodwin's Law!
...oops! That should be 'Godwin'.
I'm not going to say that it is a good argument to try to link Nazis to Christians or anyone else for that matter, but your treatment of the No True Scotsman fallacy is lacking. Without a viable definition of what a Christian is, it is hard to say what one is not. Most people say that a Christian accepts Jesus as his/her lord and savior and believes in god. Fred Phelps certainly fits that mold and probably Hitler did too. To deny their Christianity simply because they don't act as you would like them to act is why the argument is a fallacy. Note, that doesn't mean that Nazism and Christianity is linked, for the same reasons that Mr. Heddle rejects the link between Nazism and evolution, but that particular line of argumentation is fallacious.
I have to confess to being baffled that you would put my post up as an example of a "recurring skit" on "pro-evolution sites" to tie Christianity to Naziism. In fact, I specifically declaimed that position just as you declaimed the tying of Naziism to evolution. I wrote:
"Now, the Christian would obviously argue that what Hitler did was distort the true aims of Christianity, and I would agree with them. It is folly to blame Hitler's ideology of hatred on Christianity; his pathology was far deeper than a mere religious belief. But by the same token, neither was he motivated by a zeal for science. He was a manipulator who used every possible means to convince his followers to go along with him and changed his rhetoric depending on the nature of the audience he was speaking to."
I think a retraction of your charge, or at least a disclaimer, is in order. If this is truly part of a recurring skit, surely you can find a post on another site that actually fits your accusation rather than pretending that mine does or did.
Mr. Heddle, let me second Mr. Brayton's request. Having read his entry, I think a retraction is in order. Mr. Brayton clearly rejects the link between Christianity and Hitler.
Ed,
A retraction is not called for. Let's take the three points of my "recurring skit" and see how they apply in this instance:
Point 1: An article is posted that purports to link evolution and Hitler/Nazism. That would be the Farah article that you linked.
Point 2: A rebuttal is posted. That would be your article.
Point 3: COMMENTERS (you did see that word in my point 3?) divert the argument to a Christianity-Nazi link. I would point you to the comments of Chance, RickD, Sharon B, and (probably) Raging Bee.
So I stand by the assertion that my description fits what happened on your blog.
A casual reading, as you and GCT seem to have done, might cause you to miss the fact that I never accused Ed of supporting the Nazi-Christianity connection, I only stated that commenters on his post inevitably would, and they did.
However: for the sake of other sloppy readers, I'll add a clarification, but not a retraction.
That's fair enough. There were 2 or 3 commenters who disagreed with me on that and really did say that Naziism and Christianity were tied together. While I think a lot of anti-Semitic fervor can be traced to prominent Christian thinkers, particularly in Germany (Martin Luther, who was absolutely maniacal in his hatred of Jews, being the most obvious source), you can't find much to support that in the Bible itself. That perversion of Christian teaching went back long before Hitler and Hitler merely seized on it, as he did on evolution, as a means of convincing others to follow him. In neither case do I think one can reasonably put the blame for Naziism and Hitler.
And by the way, I agree with you completely on Basic Instinct 2. My reaction on seeing the trailer for it was, "Sharon Stone's career has fallen that far?" That movie just has to be bad.
Friedrich Ratzel is a indisputable link between evolution and Nazi philosphies. I heard of him when I was an undergrad in Geography.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/art...edrich%
20ratzel
Mr. Heddle,
Yes, I think the clarification was in order because it was not clear to me that you were not speaking about Mr. Brayton's views.
malm,
Have did you read the post or any of the comments before you made your comment? Unreal.
GCT,
Does David reference evolution vis-a-vis Nazism in a significant portion of his post? Ans: Yes.
Is that issue brought up within these comments (does "Mr. Heddle rejects the link between Nazism and evolution" sound familar)? Ans: Yes.
Was I puzzled? Ans: Yes, and I posted what I thought was pertinent information.
I agree that my posting does not contribute to the *central* discussion, but neither is it wholly out of place.
I suspect the last post was made by malm, so I will reply as such...
malm,
The whole point that Mr. Heddle was trying to make is that linking Nazism to evolution is just as fruitless and just as wrong as linking Christianity to Nazism. Then, you come along and try to make the link nevertheless. Nice going. That's why I wondered whether you read it. Now, I know you did, you just didn't understand it.
Unfortunately for you, you are wrong. But, if you think you can actually defend your point, don't let me stop you from doing so.
"Most people say that a Christian accepts Jesus as his/her lord and savior and believes in god. Fred Phelps certainly fits that mold and probably Hitler did too. To deny their Christianity simply because they don't act as you would like them to act is why the argument is a fallacy"
There are clear guidelines inscripture that will allow people to determine, roughly speaking, whetheror not someone is a true Christian. And whether someone is not.
Check out Galatians 5 for example:
"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
Many of Hitlers recorded activities (including his own books) expressed these attitudes.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other."
Hmm. Was Hilter known for his love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control?
I think not.
Now, let me be clear that it is God who determines who is saved (and a True Christian), but Paul and Jesus (And Peter and James, the writer of Hebrews and just about every author in the whole bible) says something to the effect of "How you behave will show what you believe."
I know I struggle sometimes with my sinful nature, that I do not perfectly express the "fruits of the Spirit", but if you ask anyone who has known me for a long time and they will tell you of the
Nice try Matt.
Jesus didn't come here to bring peace, but with a sword. Your argument is that your interpretation of what it takes to be a real Christian is THE interpretation of what it takes to be a real Christian. That's fallacious reasoning, especially when you admit that god's interpretation is the only binding one. Like I said though, nice try.
Peace or a sword? Jesus didn't lift a finger against Rome. He didn't make one international peace treaty. How can He then be considered the Prince of Peace? Notice two very different statements from the New Testament: Luke 2:14 states, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!" But in Matthew 10:34, Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword."
How can these two statements be reconciled? Can we blame Jesus' countrymen for rejecting the Prince of Peace if our own world is still engulfed in conflict as we move into the third millennium?
The two phases of peace. The answer of the New Testament must be considered. It claims that the first phase of His coming was to establish a basis for peace with God and to offer it to individuals of all nations. The New Testament also claims that He will come a second time to bring peace to the earth.
According to the apostle Paul, the first phase of Messiah's coming produced a peace unknown to man since the fall of Adam into sin. It is rooted in the saving mission carried out by Christ on our behalf. Paul wrote:
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19).
This means that the peace Jesus brought is more than a negotiated ceasefire between ourselves and God. It is a peace that changes us from enemies into the children of God.
What is the evidence that Jesus Christ is the "Prince of Peace"? This is seen in a variety of ways in the New Testament Scriptures:
His power. So significant was the power of the Son of God that He was able to bring calm to the natural storms on the turbulent Sea of Galilee. "He arose and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, 'Peace, be still!' And the wind ceased and there was a great calm" (Mk. 4:39).
His cross. So effective is His work on the cross that it is able to make peace between God and man. "It pleased the Father . . . by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled" (Col. 1:19-21).
His gospel. The good news of salvation in Christ is acknowledged as the root of peace in the hearts of the redeemed. "The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ--He is Lord of all" (Acts 10:36).
His body. Though Judaism separated Jews and Gentiles, Christ has not only reconciled God and man, He has reconciled Jew and Gentile so that we are now one body in Christ. "He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation" (Eph. 2:14).
What is the importance of the name "Prince of Peace" to the believer today? Those who trust Christ as their Mediator and Savior are given by God an assurance that flows out of a right relationship with Him. Once we are in Christ, the Prince of Peace shows us that He can bring peace wherever He rules. He can bring:
Peace in life's trials. "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid" (Jn. 14:27).
Peace in life's maturing process. "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Th. 5:23).
Peace in life's victories. "The God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly" (Rom. 16:20).
Peace in life's relationships. ". . . endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3).
Peace in life's witness. "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control" (Gal. 5:22-23).
What a treasure is ours in Isaiah's predicted Messiah. He is our Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace. May we give Him worship, as we ponder the great God that He is!
Reagan,
Got a point there? So, can I say that YOU are not a true Christian for all of your personal attacks on me?
Jesus also tightened the restrictions on marriage and divorce (Paul tightened them even further) to where a divorce may only happen in the woman is unfaithful. So, if a husband were to beat his wife, then too bad for her. That's peaceful.
Jesus also was not very pro-family.
Jesus also advocating beating slaves as much as they deserve (but no more...what a sweetheart.)
It's still a logical fallacy.
Oh, and were you ever going to tell me why you think your interpretations of the Bible are infallible? You missed a really good teaching point by not answering any of my questions. I could have taught you what science actually is, but you squandered it away. Too bad for you.
GCT, some things are just not open to interpretation as you think everything must. When I read something like "Thou shalt not commit adultery." It is plainly said, so if I echo the same thing as God, does that make my so called interpretation infallible? I say a resounding YES since that is what God wants and stated.
Now, as for your badgering, I echo what you dish out first. As for your "interpretations" why don't you list the verse and reference instead of just spouting off.
GCT, I'd rather have David Heddle teach me real science over what you display.
Reagan,
What constitutes adultery? Is that up for interpretation? Do you know what infallible means? To get back to our earlier conversation, what makes your take on the literality of Genesis infallible, and why are you certain that evolution is wrong and irreconcilable with the Bible?
What is "real science"? Are you aware the Mr. Heddle doesn't accept a Young Earth position? What science have I displayed? You've already made a judgement about what science I display without having even seen it. I'm glad to know that you are so open minded about it.
To get back to this topic, what makes a "true Christian"? I submit that one is a Christian based upon one's beliefs. All Christians believe that Jesus Christ is their lord and savior, correct? So, if you say one is not a true Christian, you are begging the question and equivocating, because you are substituting an ad hoc definition of Christian to support an assumption that is unwarranted. THAT is why the No True Scotsman argument applies here.
Reagan,
As for this, "Now, as for your badgering, I echo what you dish out first," I assume that is in response to why you are leveling personal attacks at me.
1) I fail to see where I have insulted you. You have accused me of accusing others, arrogance, being sad (not as an emotion), and being a hypocrite. The closest I can see that I have come is in saying that I perceive your position to be hubristic. So, if I am insulting you, please tell me where.
2) Even if I am insulting you, I hope you aren't seriously trying to use the "He did it first" defense. Do two wrongs make a right?
Nice try GCT
The point I made in my post, and that Reagan possibly elaborated on (though only generally) still stands and you have failed to refute it.
You said: "Jesus didn't come here to bring peace, but with a sword."
As Reagan outlined there are a number of ways to interpret this scripture. The general principles of Theology demand that we intepret it in light of other scriptures. The conclusion that Reagan came too is that accepted by most mainstream tehologians (that there are two stages to the peace that Jesus brings).
If you want to fly in the face of contemporary theological and eschatalogical scholarship you may, I have no problem wiht that. But I won't agree with you however.
"Your argument is that your interpretation of what it takes to be a real Christian is THE interpretation of what it takes to be a real Christian. That's fallacious reasoning, especially when you admit that god's interpretation is the only binding one. Like I said though, nice try."
First, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, I was presenting the hemenuetical principle of interpreting scciprtures in context rather than in isolation (as I propose you are). This is standard theological procedure. It's just the way it is. So I am not arguing that my personal interpretation is the only one. I am arguing that there is a well recognised and accepted way to interpret scripture and you were not doing it in your interpretations of scripture.
I suspect this was not explicit enough in my post.
I then attempted to provide a relevant example of this. This example might have been more or less successful.
However I must now stand and suggest that once again you are not interpreting scripture in the commonly accepted scholarly manner. In reply to Reagan you say:
"Jesus also tightened the restrictions on marriage and divorce (Paul tightened them even further) to where a divorce may only happen in the woman is unfaithful. So, if a husband were to beat his wife, then too bad for her. That's peaceful."
Although you don't quote any scriptures here I assume you are referring to particular ones. No where in scripture does Jesus explicitly state that it is okay to beat your wife. Thus you must be interpreting a scripture here. Could you elaborate on your interpretation, particularly in light of Jesus' other commands to love others as much as we love ourselves?
"Jesus also was not very pro-family." Could you back this up please? I assume you refer to the scripture that says if we place our family before Christ we cannot follow him. There are many ways to say that, but remember that this harkens back to the first of Jesus' commandments, namely to: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, sould and strength."
God is to be our First love. All other things must cede priority to him.
But, the point is that the next commandment is that "we love others as we love ourselves." Presumably that includes our families.
There are a great many books that can be found that explain the New Testaments view of families etc. I don't wish to reproduce them here. Especially when my main point is that you are not interpreting particular scriptures in light of the whole bible.
Have you ever read a review of scientific article and been frustrated because the reviewer takes a few small things out of context and uses them to trash the rest of the article? I have. That's the same thing that is happening here (though obviously it's not a scientific article).
You also wrote:
"Jesus also advocating beating slaves as much as they deserve (but no
more...what a sweetheart.)"
Can you show me where in the bible Jesus advocates beating slaves? To the best of my recollection he doesn't talk about slaves much at all. There is the parable of the mean servant, though I don't remember that involving beating, and it is a parable of what happens when people who have been given grace refuse to give it to others. It's a stretch to interpret it as saying it's okay to beat slaves or servants.
"It's still a logical fallacy."
I don't believe that you have shown any kind of logical fallacy anywhere. Perhaps you could outline the fallacy in more formal logical terms so we can assess your arguement properly for example
Proposition 1:
Proposition 2:
etc
Therefore:
Conclusion 1:
If you could do this we could assess your arguement as the the logic of the fallacy you suggest. You might be right, but I can't see any logical fallacy explicitly outlined in your posts.
As a closing comment, I should add that it is not really the place of Christians to decide whois saved and who isn't. This is judgement, and it is clearly reserved for God alone. Having said that the bible provides a number of methods of assessing where people are at. But at the end of the day we should not say with certainty who is saved and who isn't.
I would be willing to bet that Hitler was not a saved Christian, no matter what he said to the contrary. But I am not willing to stake my own salvbation on it.
LOL
Sorry for my hideous spelling. Some times the mind does not know what the fingers are doing.
I also wanted to add that scripture, in particular Jesus, is also very clear that not everyone who says follow him is truely one of his followers.
But it's equally clear that He determines who truely follows him, not anyone else (including his followers)
Matt,
I see no need to bring up particular passages of scripture when you concede the point to me.
Your argument is something like Christians are good and don't kill Jews by the thousands. Hitler was a Christian and killed Jews by the thousands, so you make an ad hoc argument that Hitler is a "true Christian." The reason it is fallacious is that your initial assumption begs the question, followed by an ad hoc addendum that has no basis in fact. Christianity is defined by belief; namely one's belief in Jesus as the path to salvation. It is not defined by actions. Therefore, even with Hitler's completely deplorable actions, he was therefore a Christian.
As you said, you'd be willing to bet that god didn't save him, and that might be a good bet to take (although in some Christian theologies, as long as he confessed his sins before he died, he would be saved.) But, you can't very well say that he wasn't a Christian. Now, of course, people like Reagan will look at this and say that I'm trying to say all Christians are bad or Christianity was responsible for the holocaust or something, but that's not it at all. I wouldn't make the claim that Christianity was responsible for it. I'm just saying that it's a logical fallacy to say, "Well, he wasn't a true Christian, because true Christians don't do THAT." I think you realize that when you say, "But, it's equally clear that He determines who truely follows him, not anyone else..."
Commenting by HaloScan
