Did Hitler cause the halocaust ...? (Was he needed to make it happen or ...?)

[End Bringer]

The argument appears to be: Malthus says resources are limited, but according to the bible miracles can happen, so as Christians we don't need to worry about that stuff.

Love it.  

Really? This was my favorite -

One of the Malthusians of their era was Paul R. Ehrlich. Writing in 1962, he bemoaned:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate. ...

And what did he think needed to be done? In a mid-1970s textbook called "Ecoscience," which he co-wrote with current Obama science czar John Holdren, they argued that the over-population "crisis" may require compulsory abortion and mass sterilizations through the water supply. And worse!

While these two were advocating for damnable tyranny under the banner of "the most good for the most people," Norman Borlaug was developing agricultural innovations to deal with the crisis:

He ... transformed agriculture through high-yield crop varieties and other innovations, helping to more than double world food production between 1960 and 1990. Many experts credit [him] with averting global famine during the second half of the 20th century and saving perhaps 1 billion lives. (emphasis mine)

I guess skeptics don't believe in progress, achievement, and innovation. Love it. 

Oh, and did Malthus advocate population reduction? As I understood it, he just suggested it would happen anyway, naturally, through famine and poverty when resource limits were reached, not that mankind should speed the process along.

*snort* And that's how the arguements for mankind speeding up the process are justified - it would happen anyway. So "spare" them the suffering. You can try to make it as PR friendly as you like, but your kidding youself if you think no one isn't suppose to draw some conclusions from the arguement. And eugenics and Social Darwinism is that logical conclusion.

[JustMyron]

And eugenics and Social Darwinism is that logical conclusion.

Or contraception.

In countries where contraception is widely used (except the US, where a minority of Catholics having 5-10 babies apiece will make up 25% of the electorate in a few decades if current demographic trends continue), the birth rate is already below replacement rate, which will lead to a gradual population decline.

[D M]

Hi,

Hitler ordered the holocaust but he could not have carried it out were it not for the indifference and culpability of many others. If Hitler had been killed before the war, perhaps there would not have been a holocaust of jews, although it's hard to know if what would come in its place would have been better or worse. Someone else could have perhaps done it if the circumstances were right, and there have been many genocides and anti-semitic pograms in the history of the world done by others.

There are some ways that I could think that what would come in his place could have been worse. The USSR was carrying out a brutal campaign of persecution (which may have killed more people than the holocaust) in the 1930s against people of religious belief, nationalist groups, or whoever Stalin imagined was trying to get him. Much of that persecution was brought to an end when Hitler invaded in 1941 (Stalin stopped it in order to unify the country), and if Hitler hadn't existed perhaps it would have continued or grown. Of course, Hitler didn't really intend to produce that kind of good and it can't be attributed to his merit. Some would argue that his attack on the western european countries caused the end of colonialism by bankrupting their economies and forcing them to get rid of them after the war, and some will argue that that was a good thing.

All evil things are used for good purposes ultimately; it's the will of Providence. Romans 8:28 We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.

God Bless,

[hypsell]

An expression I coined to describe the rise and fall of populations of a small fish,Adinia xenica,which I catch for my aquariums.I found that populations of these fish,when found in an isolated marshland mostly cut off from outside tidal fluctuations,tended to rise slowly for several years then suddenly fall back to very few.I concluded that likely overcrowding was the culprit and have wondered if the same effect might someday occurr to humans as our population rises.

[Kerlyssa]

And eugenics and Social Darwinism is that logical conclusion.

[Assyriankey]

I concluded that likely overcrowding was the culprit and have wondered if the same effect might someday occurr to humans as our population rises.

Most likely, yes.

[JustMyron]

All evil things are used for good purposes ultimately;

If all evil things are used for good purposes, then in what sense are they evil? Aren't they, in the end, good?

[D M]

All evil things are used for good purposes ultimately;

If all evil things are used for good purposes, then in what sense are they evil? Aren't they, in the end, good?

Hi,

Yes, in the end they are all good. Although the person who willed evil can't be merited by that good since she did not have intend it to be that way. They are evil ultimately only in the sense that the person who willed them was trying to do something harmful.

Providence and the scandal of evil.

309 If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question: the goodness of creation, the drama of sin and the patient love of God who comes to meet man by his covenants, the redemptive Incarnation of his Son, his gift of the Spirit, his gathering of the Church, the power of the sacraments and his call to a blessed life to which free creatures are invited to consent in advance, but from which, by a terrible mystery, they can also turn away in advance. There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.

310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better.174 But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.175

311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil.176 He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:

For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.177
312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: "It was not you", said Joseph to his brothers, "who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive."178 From the greatest moral evil ever committed - the rejection and murder of God's only Son, caused by the sins of all men - God, by his grace that "abounded all the more",179 brought the greatest of goods: the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for all that, evil never becomes a good.

313 "We know that in everything God works for good for those who love him."180 The constant witness of the saints confirms this truth:

St. Catherine of Siena said to "those who are scandalized and rebel against what happens to them": "Everything comes from love, all is ordained for the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind."181
St. Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: "Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best."182

Dame Julian of Norwich: "Here I was taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly keep me in the faith... and that at the same time I should take my stand on and earnestly believe in what our Lord shewed in this time - that 'all manner [of] thing shall be well.'"183

314 We firmly believe that God is master of the world and of its history. But the ways of his providence are often unknown to us. Only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God "face to face",184 will we fully know the ways by which - even through the dramas of evil and sin - God has guided his creation to that definitive sabbath rest185 for which he created heaven and earth.

-Catechism of hte Catholic Church, 1992, http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/aposcons.htm

God Bless,

[JustMyron]

All evil things are used for good purposes ultimately;

If all evil things are used for good purposes, then in what sense are they evil? Aren't they, in the end, good?

Hi,

Yes, in the end they are all good. Although the person who willed evil can't be merited by that good since she did not have intend it to be that way. They are evil ultimately only in the sense that the person who willed them was trying to do something harmful.

I've never met anyone who deliberately tried to do something harmful. Now, being blinded by hate or anger and trying to get "what you deserve" or "fair treatment" or "justice" for yourself at someone else's expense is another matter - lots of people go for those things. But their focus isn't on harming someone else, it's on helping themselves, or doing what they consider to be fair/just to someone else.

What you're talking about is someone who set out deliberately towards an evil end. I think people always set out towards what they consider good ends. Sometimes the means they use to get there aren't so good, though.

[Assyriankey]

.

[D M]

Hi Myron,

I've never met anyone who deliberately tried to do something harmful. Now, being blinded by hate or anger and trying to get "what you deserve" or "fair treatment" or "justice" for yourself at someone else's expense is another matter - lots of people go for those things. But their focus isn't on harming someone else, it's on helping themselves, or doing what they consider to be fair/just to someone else.

What you're talking about is someone who set out deliberately towards an evil end. I think people always set out towards what they consider good ends. Sometimes the means they use to get there aren't so good, though.

I would consider getting unjustly angry at someone and trying to hurt that person as a form doing harm to them. It wouldn’t necessarily matter if they justified it in their minds at the time, because they may justify it dishonestly and they are still guilty in that. If a person is angry at someone and decides without cause that this person somehow just deserves some kind of vengeance without any other reason prompting this then that kind of irrational selfish anger, then that person is still guilty and willing evil.

If a person seeks a selfish end and they know that it is going to harm other people (eg. suppose some factory in New Brunswick dumped mercury into the Bay of Fundy such that the fish became toxic to eat because the company was run from California and they really didn’t care about the locals, but only about cutting costs) then even if the harm is just a side-effect, it’s still a known side-effect and that person is still culpable of willing something evil. It’s only if the person doesn’t know that what they do is going to cause such harm (eg. suppose the company was run by really dumb people who for some reason didn’t realize that mercury would affect people’s health) then that person is not culpable.


AK:

D M, given what you've just said above (to JM) why don't you consider God's sacrifice of Jesus as an act of evil?

If a person gives a vaccine shot to someone and the needle causes pain, the person giving the vaccine is not doing something evil even if it inflicts suffering, because the intent is to cause something ultimately good. When God gives His Son over to great suffering, in a similar way (although not exactly the same), it is not that He has caused evil even if He permits the suffering to exist because the end He is trying to reach with it is ultimately good.

God Bless,

[JustMyron]

If a person seeks a selfish end and they know that it is going to harm other people (eg. suppose some factory in New Brunswick dumped mercury into the Bay of Fundy such that the fish became toxic to eat because the company was run from California and they really didn’t care about the locals, but only about cutting costs) then even if the harm is just a side-effect, it’s still a known side-effect and that person is still culpable of willing something evil. It’s only if the person doesn’t know that what they do is going to cause such harm (eg. suppose the company was run by really dumb people who for some reason didn’t realize that mercury would affect people’s health) then that person is not culpable.

What if someone believes the good that will be done by producing the things that the factory produces outweighs the "evil" caused by the mercury? So they intend to do something good (produce valuable goods or services) and are willing to accept the cost because they think it's worth it. Are they doing evil then? How is that different from your vaccine shot example?

Or, what if since they didn't care about the locals, they just didn't think about them at all? The impact on the local population wasn't weighed in in their decision making processes, so it's not as if they chose to hurt the local population, it just wasn't considered. Is that evil? If so, are all human beings morally obligated to consider all possible stakeholders in every action they take? If so, I think all decision-making stops.

[JustMyron]

I would consider getting unjustly angry at someone and trying to hurt that person as a form doing harm to them. It wouldn’t necessarily matter if they justified it in their minds at the time, because they may justify it dishonestly and they are still guilty in that.

How is it possible for you to be dishonest to yourself? You need one person to be the liar (saying something they know is untrue), and one person to tbe the lied-to (who believes something that is untrue, but they don't know it's untrue). Someone can't be ignorant about the truth concerning a lie they've told themselves - that doesn't make sense. Even supposing they did lie to themselves and then forgot they did so and acted upon the lie they'd convinced themselves is true, aren't they then going forward in genuine good faith (being the lied to, rather than the liar, since the liar must by this time have passed out of memory)? Why should someone who has been lied to (even by an earlier version of themselves, who now no longer exists) be culpable for believing the lie?

If a person is angry at someone and decides without cause that this person somehow just deserves some kind of vengeance without any other reason prompting this then that kind of irrational selfish anger, then that person is still guilty and willing evil.

If they believe they have cause, even though everyone else would say they don't, are they evil? Is all irrationality evil? I don't think irrational people are particularly well self-controlled, and isn't control of oneself necessary for culpability?

[D M]

Hi Myron,

What if someone believes the good that will be done by producing the things that the factory produces outweighs the "evil" caused by the mercury? So they intend to do something good (produce valuable goods or services) and are willing to accept the cost because they think it's worth it. Are they doing evil then? How is that different from your vaccine shot example?

Or, what if since they didn't care about the locals, they just didn't think about them at all? The impact on the local population wasn't weighed in in their decision making processes, so it's not as if they chose to hurt the local population, it just wasn't considered. Is that evil?

If someone knows that the good that will be done somehow outweighs the evil then, yes it is permissible. I use the above example because in most cases I don’t think there would be a reasonable way of justifying it. If someone dumps mercury and poisons people because she wants to produce cheap car batteries, then it doesn’t really outweigh it and I think people generally can see that.

If the people didn’t know that there were locals or that anyone would be adversely affected by what they did, then they would only be culpable insofar as they were negligent in determining if anyone would be affected. If they were not negligent, that is for example if we suppose that they had done efforts to determine that no one lived near or depended on the Bay of Fundy, and somehow miraculously they honestly came up with the conclusion that no such persons existed, then they would not be culpable.

If they knew that people could probably be affected but they just didn’t think of that, and went ahead anyways, then they are still culpable for their negligence.


How do you judge right and wrong? If someone dumped mercury in the Bay of Fundy to make cheap car batteries would you refrain from judging that they had done something wrong?

How is it possible for you to be dishonest to yourself? You need one person to be the liar (saying something they know is untrue), and one person to tbe the lied-to (who believes something that is untrue, but they don't know it's untrue). Someone can't be ignorant about the truth concerning a lie they've told themselves - that doesn't make sense. Even supposing they did lie to themselves and then forgot they did so and acted upon the lie they'd convinced themselves is true, aren't they then going forward in genuine good faith (being the lied to, rather than the liar, since the liar must by this time have passed out of memory)? Why should someone who has been lied to (even by an earlier version of themselves, who now no longer exists) be culpable for believing the lie?

People cling to delusions all the time that suit their needs when they could otherwise rationally see the Truth. People make up things in their own head about evil things that others have done, which they could otherwise plainly see they do not know to be true but which they cling to in lack of evidence because they’re angry with them and want to put those people down in their minds.

If someone were to lie to herself and think that you were a paedophile, because she hated you and somehow reasoned to herself that you must be one, such that she told others that you were a paedophile, would you judge that she has done nothing wrong?

If they believe they have cause, even though everyone else would say they don't, are they evil? Is all irrationality evil? I don't think irrational people are particularly well self-controlled, and isn't control of oneself necessary for culpability?

No, irrationality is not evil in itself. We all do things that don’t make sense at times, but there are some things we do that we ought to know better about. If a person knows that getting drunk and then driving a car is dangerous, then they shouldn’t do it. Do you think differently?

God Bless,

[JustMyron]

How do you judge right and wrong? If someone dumped mercury in the Bay of Fundy to make cheap car batteries would you refrain from judging that they had done something wrong?

I would probably judge that what they had done was wrong, but rather than focusing on the person and on punishment, I would focus on what they had done. I have limited energies, and I would focus those energies towards making sure that something like that didn't happen again, by looking at the incentives they had to do what they did, and changing those. For example, if they did it for profit, I would look at why what they did was profitable, and attempt to get the laws changed so that it wasn't profitable for them any more. Moralizing wouldn't come into it. I would want to know why they did it, and then I would work on changing those reasons so that their behaviour would change as a consequence.

If someone were to lie to herself and think that you were a paedophile, because she hated you and somehow reasoned to herself that you must be one, such that she told others that you were a paedophile, would you judge that she has done nothing wrong?

If I had that kind of information, judging her right or wrong would be far from the top of my priority list. I would work on figuring out why she hated me, and change whatever the reason for that was, so that she didn't hate me any more. Then she would see that I wasn't a pedophile, and she would apologize for what she'd said, and I'd forgive her, and we'd go on. The fact that she'd called me a pedophile would be far less important to me than the fact that she hated me. Dwelling on whether what she did or said was wrong wouldn't be my focus - that would, in fact, prevent me from being as easily able to forgive her and move on once the cause of the misunderstanding had been fixed.

I have limited time. Spending it getting worked up over whether someone has wronged me is a pointless waste, in my opinion. It can only lead to anger and frustration, and possibly unjust action on my part, if I let it get in the way of dealing with the causes of the things I consider wrong.

No, irrationality is not evil in itself. We all do things that don’t make sense at times, but there are some things we do that we ought to know better about. If a person knows that getting drunk and then driving a car is dangerous, then they shouldn’t do it. Do you think differently?

My thinking is that externally imposed standards of what someone ought to know are irrelevant. Either they know better, or they don't. If they act in a certain way, that means they don't know they should be acting in a "better" way. Because if they knew, they'd do it. Rather than judging someone for drinking and driving, I would look at the situation they got themselves into, and query at what point they forgot that they shouldn't drink and drive (often this is after having a few drinks.) I would then put control mechanisms in place. Signs in the washrooms (where people who are drinking heavily go frequently) and laws which require those serving alcohol to keep an eye on the people in their establishment are far more effective than holding someone responsible after the fact and making an example of them, in my opinion.

People do all kinds of things they shouldn't do. But rather than changing their behaviour by guilt and blame and punishment, I look towards contributing factors which caused them to do what they did. If I can change those, I can change people's behaviour, and scolding them for their reprehensible behaviour becomes unnecessary, because it won't recur. And after all, isn't stopping the behaviour from happening again the whole point? After all, you can't change the past.

[Shakaib]

Hitler was too evil! I can't believe he killed so many people!!!

[D M]

Hi Myron,

I would probably judge that what they had done was wrong, but rather than focusing on the person and on punishment, I would focus on what they had done. I have limited energies, and I would focus those energies towards making sure that something like that didn't happen again, by looking at the incentives they had to do what they did, and changing those. For example, if they did it for profit, I would look at why what they did was profitable, and attempt to get the laws changed so that it wasn't profitable for them any more. Moralizing wouldn't come into it. I would want to know why they did it, and then I would work on changing those reasons so that their behaviour would change as a consequence.

Would you be opposed to the concept of punishing (with jail or fines or something) the people who did that?

I think I sort of understand what you mean by ‘moralizing’, although I don’t think I was stressing that we ought to not forget and forgive what they did. You agree that you would probably judge it to be wrong even if you wouldn’t spend much effort beyond that in trying to point fingers. I’m not in much disagreement with that notion.

If I had that kind of information, judging her right or wrong would be far from the top of my priority list. I would work on figuring out why she hated me, and change whatever the reason for that was, so that she didn't hate me any more. Then she would see that I wasn't a pedophile, and she would apologize for what she'd said, and I'd forgive her, and we'd go on. The fact that she'd called me a pedophile would be far less important to me than the fact that she hated me. Dwelling on whether what she did or said was wrong wouldn't be my focus - that would, in fact, prevent me from being as easily able to forgive her and move on once the cause of the misunderstanding had been fixed.

I have limited time. Spending it getting worked up over whether someone has wronged me is a pointless waste, in my opinion. It can only lead to anger and frustration, and possibly unjust action on my part, if I let it get in the way of dealing with the causes of the things I consider wrong.

Your willingness to forget offences and forgive her is commendable, and many of us could learn from it. You are right that holding onto grudges or dwelling on wrongs is not helpful for any of us and in truth it often hurts the person who holds onto it more than the person who did the wrong. I’m in agreement with this. I would still say that the person had done something wrong, although I wouldn’t focus on that fact because trying to become reconciled is more important.

My thinking is that externally imposed standards of what someone ought to know are irrelevant. Either they know better, or they don't. If they act in a certain way, that means they don't know they should be acting in a "better" way. Because if they knew, they'd do it. Rather than judging someone for drinking and driving, I would look at the situation they got themselves into, and query at what point they forgot that they shouldn't drink and drive (often this is after having a few drinks.) I would then put control mechanisms in place. Signs in the washrooms (where people who are drinking heavily go frequently) and laws which require those serving alcohol to keep an eye on the people in their establishment are far more effective than holding someone responsible after the fact and making an example of them, in my opinion.

People do all kinds of things they shouldn't do. But rather than changing their behaviour by guilt and blame and punishment, I look towards contributing factors which caused them to do what they did. If I can change those, I can change people's behaviour, and scolding them for their reprehensible behaviour becomes unnecessary, because it won't recur. And after all, isn't stopping the behaviour from happening again the whole point? After all, you can't change the past.

I don’t think it makes sense to assume that if a person acts in a certain way it must mean that they don’t know they should be acting in a better way. Many of us know better than what we do and yet we still do it. People can have regrets over their past behaviour for this reason.

If you don’t think punishment should occur, are you opposed to the concept of people being locked up or fined for crimes? Or are you opposed to when parents or teachers will punish children for misbehaviour?

Punishments can have deterrent effects such that they can deter people from doing what the punishment is given for. I agree that this should not be the focus of our attention, and it should be towards forgivenss and reconciliation, and it would be better if we had as minimal and merciful punishments as reason would allow, since there’s no point in punishing people as end to itself.


God Bless,

[rickymooston]

Hitler was too evil! I can't believe he killed so many people!!!

The question is whether other people caused him and allowed him to do it?

There was a lot of bitterness over the loss at WW I and a feeling that a "back stab" occurred; i.e., a lot of soldiers felt betrayed by their leadership. They somehow blamed in on Jews.

[Marksheppy]

What we call World War II is really a continuation of The Great World War. That which everyone knows was caused by the British, because Germany was then developing as a nation and challenging their economic supremacy. Eugenics was first devised by the British and so it is no mischance that it was picked up by the Nazis. Hitler was a British installation, a dictator for morally and financially bankrupt germany (he just went a little too far).

The practices engaged in by eugenicists involving violations of privacy, attacks on reputation, violations of the right to life, to found a family, to freedom from discrimination are all today classified as violations of human rights. The practice of negative racial aspects of eugenics, after World War II, fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin. At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling and Sidney Webb. Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was however Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf, and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.

Francis Galton  Blame him for the Holocaust?

[Marksheppy]

Lol, I thought Malthus was an economist. . Social darwinismis malthusianism no?

Malthus suggested that since people have a strong drive to reproduce, population will always outstrip resources, which means poverty will always be with us. As soon as new resources are found, the population will grow, and over-extend, and die off, and new resources will be found, and the cycle will repeat. He was presenting a counter to the arguments of optimists in the 1800's who thought infinite social progress was possible through the application of scientific principles. He wasn't suggesting that the strong should survive at the expense of the weak, just pointing out that we have limited resources. I wouldn't call that social Darwinist, just factual.

Google associates Malthus with population analysis, which is what made sense to me given what I knew of him beforehand. The Malthusian mind appears to be a fringe concept, basically a synonym for "someone who jumps to the conclusion that population control is necessary."

Thomas Malthus is another British Satanist. Taught about in the colleges, along with other degenerates such as Nietzsche, Kant, Issac Newton, Thomas Hobbes, etc. That people are bad, we procreate too fast, whereas we eventually outstrip all resources. The unholy myth that there is only a "finite" amount of resources on the planet, so we need people on the top who can help keep our population levels at a "safe" and sustainable level. This really is legalized satanism, so yeah. It is being repeated today in the United States with the Environmentalist movement and so called "Climate Change" theory, that is another Holocaust waiting to happen.  I haven't done a lot of reseach into eugenics, except to know that it is connected with Darwinism, but is definitely more sinister. To kill or sterilize off the "defects" in society. What a crock, you could easily easily link them all together with Thomas Malthus. Keep in mind that there would be no Adolf Hitler and no Holocaust and murder of six million jews, if not for the aforementioned British think tanks of the 19th century.

*

[JustMyron]

That people are bad

What do you think of Calvin? The non-religious certainly don't have a monopoly on thinking people are bad.

I don't think people are bad, by the way, but I'm pretty sure they use up resources and strain ecosystem services if there are too many of them on too little land. Would this viewpoint make me a satanist?

I don't know that any of the other people you listed thought people were bad, either - but some of them understood that everyone's gotta eat, and there are limits to how much food a given area of land can produce per year. If you object to people acknowledging these facts, because you think it leads to the holocaust, then I really don't know what to say to you.

[JustMyron]

I agree that this should not be the focus of our attention, and it should be towards forgivenss and reconciliation, and it would be better if we had as minimal and merciful punishments as reason would allow, since there’s no point in punishing people as end to itself.

Then we are in agreement.

[Marksheppy]

That people are bad

What do you think of Calvin? The non-religious certainly don't have a monopoly on thinking people are bad.

I don't think people are bad, by the way, but I'm pretty sure they use up resources and strain ecosystem services if there are too many of them on too little land. Would this viewpoint make me a satanist?

I don't know that any of the other people you listed thought people were bad, either - but some of them understood that everyone's gotta eat, and there are limits to how much food a given area of land can produce per year. If you object to people acknowledging these facts, because you think it leads to the holocaust, then I really don't know what to say to you.

To be honest, I don't know anything about John Calvin really. I have lately been getting into writings of Lyndon LaRouche and he definitely has his viewpoints on the way history is why it is. And severely discusses to the culprits of it. I agree with some but not all of it, it is good to read for yourself and make your own judgements. You make a good point which I actually agree with, and it has been proven. LaRouche would call you and me a Satanist for believing that viewpoint, that too many people on a certain area of land will strain and use up resources.

Acknowledging the "facts" especially as the news and the Universities are giving them to us though will lead to another holocaust. And the proprietors will find another Hitler, just some tool whoever to pull it off. That's all Hitler was, a tool. There is always a bigger picture. My friend who is a big LaRouche activist told me that he thought John Calvin was "Aristotle with horns." And they think that Aristotle was the antichrist, because of his concept of man. That we are nothing more than slaves, and that we should not be free thinkers. Also, Calvin was supposedly for the free markets, which is of course the British imperial policy we know of today as globalization.

[jewbacca]

In every generation, there comes a Haman.  Adolfus was just the one for that generation

[D M]

Hi,

An interesting note:

Some historians have thought that there was a linkage between the influence in Germany of some of Martin Luther's anti-semitic writings and the holocaust. I've encountered one historian who I think may have argued that there was a significant revival of reading some of Luther's texts in the post-WW1 era, maybe because after the soldiers came home and everything that happened, people were looking to religion to answer things.

Luther originally was quite tolerant towards jews, but this radically changed near the end of his life when he published his work 'On the Jews and their lies' in which he claimed things like that the synagogues should be burned and that christians were at fault for not killing the jews. The Nazis made a new edition of this book and reprinted it in great numbers. For any interested it can be seen here:  http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm


God Bless,

[rickymooston]

In every generation, there comes a Haman.  Adolfus was just the one for that generation

Only one?

He seems like a pretty unlikely character. In life, prior to getting into power he was a huge loser.

[Shakaib]

Hitler killed the ancestors of all the Jewish Prophets that existed!! How angry I am!! 

[rickymooston]

Hitler killed the ancestors of all the Jewish Prophets that existed!! How angry I am!! 

you mean descendants.

yeah he did a lot of killing.

[Shakaib]

Silly me lol!  Yeah I meant descendants.