NationStates Jolt Archive

Except that I disagree that force is wrong.

Then why do you like nazism so much?

again, i dont get forum slang. whats sig'd? how do i sid'd?
This has been quoted in my signature for 'lols.

Dude, this reich guy is a real nutcase wannabee cult nazi hittlerette that thinks that blonde people are magical mermaids from a special star, and eveyone else should die. What are brilliant theory, and life outlook.

The point being that the Vatican did not outright condemn the Reich.

Politically speaking, they couldn't.

That's dozens of biblical quotes, Papal statements, and stuff by doctors and Saints of the Church. That is evidence.
Not religiously binding evidence. Just personal opinions.

The Bible quotes mean nothing by themselves.

Name a single Ex Cathedra statement by the pope that said such a thing.
Name a single one that's on your website. The Vatican doesn't have a list, so I can't check which ones are and which aren't ex cathedra.

There's just as many statements by the Pope and the Church to say the Jews are good as there are (from the Middle Ages) that they're bad.

Was not infallible
Nonetheless an official church document. Just like the Roman Missal.

*blinks*

Pardon my French, but what in the fuck has that got to do with your claim that Hitler didn't kill Catholics for being Catholics?

You lose at this thread. Badly.

He lost this debate a few days ago. He lost it on page one of this thread too.

Fourth Reich, I am not going to call you a troll. After all, you seem to be capable of forming an opinion based on your beliefs, and defending those opinions in a debate. Frankly, were I to post on Stormfront (and not get deleted) I would get a similar reaction.

And probably on the phora, on nsm88.com, etc.

First, I am Jewish. I practice Judaism, I attend a Jewish school, I support the State of Israel, I wear a yarmulke, you get the idea. By your logic, I therefore should die. Now, I want you to say this blatantly, as if it was to my face. Do I deserve to die on the basis that I am a Jew?

You are a Jew. You are nationally of Israel. I don't believe that a Jew should be anywhere but Israel. However, I don't believe that Israel should exist. Therefore, politically, I think you can get where I am going with this.

Religiously, well...so that I might not be subject to accusations of trolling or harboring an opinion contrary to the Faith, I'll quote the Saints and Doctors of the Church:

"Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection."
Pope Innocent III

"We order all our brother bishops absolutely to suppress the blasphemy of Jews in your dioceses, churches, and communities, so that they do not dare raise their necks, bent under eternal slavery, to revile the Redeemer."
Pope Gregory IX.

"It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime."
St. Thomas Aquinas

"Let the Gospel be preached to them and, if they remain obstinate, let them be expelled."Pope Leo VII

Having said this, I will not dodge the question, Jew. I despise you with every fiber of my being. You are my enemy.

Second, the blood libel is an utter and total lie, and would violate half the laws in the Torah. In a Jewish theocracy, if Jews did that, they would be executed, at minimum for murder, at worst for engaging in what could be called human sacrifice.

Ah, the Torah, which totally should have prevented you people from the unfair and illicit trial to which Christ was subjected. Since when did the Torah stop you, Jew?

Innocent my ass.

Most of the victims were innocent men, women, AND CHILDREN!!!!!

Yeah, cos we've never used force before have we?

Oh, what about when america locked up japanese and germans during WW2? Or what about the Red scare? i suppose it was all their fault....

Thing is though, we gave money to the japanese-Americans who were interred. Also remember that we did not exterminate them while they were interred and several Japanese Americans went into the American Army and helped in the war effort to defeat japan.

Yes, men, women, and children deserve to die. Enemies of the state they are. Perhaps they could have thrown their star necklaces at the nazis?


Dude, you're an asshole. I think nazis need their own country, just so we can nuke their asses off.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/b5/20060306010514!DoNotFeedTroll.png

Oh good. Now that you've resorted to only calling him "Jew", we can break down the lovely barrier and only call you "Nazi".

Sick fuck.

If you want to debate or discuss the topic, do so. Name-calling ain't debate or discussion. Consider this a friendly warning.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

They had been, were, and still are a subversive foreign national group.

Including those who fought for the Germans in World War I and won the Iron cross of Bravery?

bible rantings

Police Chief Wiggum:"Yeah, the bible says a lotta things lady. Throw her, boys."

http://www.thesimpsonsquotes.com/images/chiefstandingtall.gif

Thing is though, we gave money to the japanese-Americans who were interred. Also remember that we did not exterminate them while they were interred and several Japanese Americans went into the American Army and helped in the war effort to defeat japan.

So true. There is NO COMPARISON to gassing "inferior" people and paying people them comepnsation for their houses and putting them in humane camps, were they are fed enough and are not abused.

I doubt it. This thread would have been over long ago had he been like that. This guy is actually capable of making rational arguments and finding evidence that he believes is valid.

See, The Fourth Holy Reich holds by vastly different basic principles than the rest of us. He believes in racial superiority, and that people are responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. And based on his principles and his evidence, his opinion is probably correct. Therefore, we do not have common ground on which to successfully debate him. Nor can he successfully debate us.

Isn't it around 13 million if one accounts for both the war and the genocide?

R.J. Rummel estimates in Death by Government that the Nazis easily killed as many as 20-25 million.

I doubt it. This thread would have been over long ago had he been like that. This guy is actually capable of making rational arguments and finding evidence that he believes is valid.

See, The Fourth Holy Reich holds by vastly different basic principles than the rest of us. He believes in racial superiority, and that people are responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. And based on his principles and his evidence, his opinion is probably correct. Therefore, we do not have common ground on which to successfully debate him. Nor can he successfully debate us.
One can certainly point out why many of us would refuse to live in, or even condone, a state such as his though. However, as long as the Nazis go and make their own little community and stay out of my way, I take no issue with them.

And based on his principles and his evidence, his opinion is probably correct.
Not really. Much of his argument is based on Catholic teachings. But Catholic teachings today tell us that the Jews are good people, the first who saw god and are to be included in prayers.

I doubt it. This thread would have been over long ago had he been like that. This guy is actually capable of making rational arguments and finding evidence that he believes is valid.

See, The Fourth Holy Reich holds by vastly different basic principles than the rest of us. He believes in racial superiority, and that people are responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. And based on his principles and his evidence, his opinion is probably correct. Therefore, we do not have common ground on which to successfully debate him. Nor can he successfully debate us.
MTAE is more rational than this guy, and it was hotly debated whether he was a troll. These arguments seem to generally consist of:
"PH34R T3H J00 CONSPIRACY!!!"
"Prove killing millions of people isn't evil!"
"Jews are evil cause saints said so!"
That's pretty much it.

R.J. Rummel estimates in Death by Government that the Nazis easily killed as many as 20-25 million.
I'll take a look at that. For Stalin, I would easily see such a figure as imaginable, but for the Nazis it is usually maintained it's around half that. So I'll cross-reference to see what I find.

And probably on the phora, on nsm88.com, etc.



You are a Jew. You are nationally of Israel. I don't believe that a Jew should be anywhere but Israel. However, I don't believe that Israel should exist. Therefore, politically, I think you can get where I am going with this.

Religiously, well...so that I might not be subject to accusations of trolling or harboring an opinion contrary to the Faith, I'll quote the Saints and Doctors of the Church:

"Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection."
Pope Innocent III

"We order all our brother bishops absolutely to suppress the blasphemy of Jews in your dioceses, churches, and communities, so that they do not dare raise their necks, bent under eternal slavery, to revile the Redeemer."
Pope Gregory IX.

"It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime."
St. Thomas Aquinas

"Let the Gospel be preached to them and, if they remain obstinate, let them be expelled."Pope Leo VII

Having said this, I will not dodge the question, Jew. I despise you with every fiber of my being. You are my enemy.



Ah, the Torah, which totally should have prevented you people from the unfair and illicit trial to which Christ was subjected. Since when did the Torah stop you, Jew?
so you're going to take the actions of a few and place them on the many. And in stead of trying to peacefully convert him, your just going suggest killing him. Cause thats exactly what Jesus did. Instead of trying to use the word of god for your own twisted, sick and demented purposes, maybe you should actually try reading it. All of it, not just the parts that appeal to you. Jesus wasn't a man of war like your nazi friends. He was a man of peace. He did not resist his tormentors even though the bible says he had all the power in the world to do so. Instead of hating Jewish people, you should be loving them as Jesus and all of his disciples did. And if you don't love them and continue to hate, then my friend you cannot ever, EVER, truly call yourself a christian.

The Jews did not kill Jesus, the Romans did. Though I should mention that the Jews COULD have executed Jesus for heresy - but he was crucified (a Roman punishment) not stoned (which is what the Jews would have done).
Having said this, I will not dodge the question, Jew. I despise you with every fiber of my being. You are my enemy.
I appreciate your honesty. I feel the same about you. Now that we have determined that the two of us are mortal enemies, shall we get on with the debate?

And probably on the phora, on nsm88.com, etc.



You are a Jew. You are nationally of Israel. I don't believe that a Jew should be anywhere but Israel. However, I don't believe that Israel should exist. Therefore, politically, I think you can get where I am going with this.

Religiously, well...so that I might not be subject to accusations of trolling or harboring an opinion contrary to the Faith, I'll quote the Saints and Doctors of the Church:

"Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection."
Pope Innocent III

"We order all our brother bishops absolutely to suppress the blasphemy of Jews in your dioceses, churches, and communities, so that they do not dare raise their necks, bent under eternal slavery, to revile the Redeemer."
Pope Gregory IX.

"It would be licit, according to custom, to hold the Jews in perpetual servitude because of their crime."
St. Thomas Aquinas

"Let the Gospel be preached to them and, if they remain obstinate, let them be expelled."Pope Leo VII

Having said this, I will not dodge the question, Jew. I despise you with every fiber of my being. You are my enemy.



Ah, the Torah, which totally should have prevented you people from the unfair and illicit trial to which Christ was subjected. Since when did the Torah stop you, Jew?

No offense meant to any catholics, by any means, but some Popes were bad leaders. I DESPISE YOU NAZI. Imagine having your mother, sisters hauled off to ovens were they would be gassed to death, treated worse than they would in hell, have them experiment on them. Or if you were an expecting father, to see your wife killed and your baby tested on. Because, as you put it, you ignorant jerk (I suppose you don't know a thing about what you are talking about) they are "inferiors and enemies of the state". A CURSE UPON NAZIS, THE TRUE INFERIORS OF THE HUMAN RACE.

Not really. Much of his argument is based on Catholic teachings. But Catholic teachings today tell us that the Jews are good people, the first who saw god and are to be included in prayers.

Yes, it is the opinion of many Catholic modernists that Jews are ok. As a Catholic Traditionalist, I cannot accept their opinion is valid. It completely contradicts the continuity of Church Tradition.

Out of curiosity, why go to the tremendous effort of reconciling Nazism with Christianity? I thought most Nazis had moved on to Asatru, or even Satanism, if not pure atheism/agnosticism.
Sigh. I repeat. The question is directed at our amiable forum Nazi, TFHR.

I find it ironic that TFHR hates Jews, and yet, Jesus was a Jew and so was his followers.

The Jews did not kill Jesus, the Romans did. Though I should mention that the Jews COULD have executed Jesus for heresy - but he was crucified (a Roman punishment) not stoned (which is what the Jews would have done).

I appreciate your honesty. I feel the same about you. Now that we have determined that the two of us are mortal enemies, shall we get on with the debate?

CALLING HIM AND THE REST OF US PEOPLE THAT ARE OF JEWISH HERITAGE IS NOT OKAY. IF YOU HAD AN OUNCE OF REASON IN YOU, YOU'D KNOW THAT, SON OF LUCIFER HIMSELF.

If you want to debate or discuss the topic, do so. Name-calling ain't debate or discussion. Consider this a friendly warning.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

I'm sorry, I've met many people who've lost family members to Nazism, so people like this really irk me. I will not name call again, though.

Yes, it is the opinion of many Catholic modernists that Jews are ok. As a Catholic Traditionalist, I cannot accept their opinion is valid. It completely contradicts the continuity of Church Tradition.
Modernists like the last three or four Popes. :rolleyes:

Who undoubtedly know a lot more about the Catholic tradition and past rulings than you do.

I appreciate your honesty.

What the fuck is the matter with you?! Do NOT give people like him air to make thier arguments. They shit on humanity.

I consider that a very major crime, and so did Mein Fuhrer.

http://www.stsimonoftrent.com

So being a Jew is a crime to you? WOW! Now I know you are an idiot.

This thread reminds me of 8th grade when all of us children were arguing over Bush and Kerry. :rolleyes:

I find it ironic that TFHR hates Jews, and yet, Jesus was a Jew and so was his followers.

I know. He is a bigoted cult pot that needs to get his pathetic arguments facts straight.

Yes, it is the opinion of many Catholic modernists that Jews are ok. As a Catholic Traditionalist, I cannot accept their opinion is valid. It completely contradicts the continuity of Church Tradition.

Yea, but you know what, The Vatican changes, it may be slowly changes, but it does changes. What the Vatican holds as tradition 100 years ago, isn't traditions anymore. If you really are a Catholic then you would realize the legit power of Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican II has.

I'll take a look at that. For Stalin, I would easily see such a figure as imaginable, but for the Nazis it is usually maintained it's around half that. So I'll cross-reference to see what I find.

His estimate for Stalin is even bigger.

What the fuck is the matter with you?! Do NOT give people like him air to make thier arguments. They shit on humanity.
His opinions will not likely change. They can be debated, they can be undermined by way of argument. However, they are his to form as he pleases. So long as he keeps them to himself, indeed there is no problem. Best in fact that these individuals band together somewhere and form their own community.

His estimate for Stalin is even bigger.
I'm guessing in the region of 40 million?

Yes, it is the opinion of many Catholic modernists that Jews are ok. As a Catholic Traditionalist, I cannot accept their opinion is valid. It completely contradicts the continuity of Church Tradition.

Frankly, you're about as Catholic as Gahndi was violent.

What the fuck is the matter with you?! Do NOT give people like him air to make thier arguments. They shit on humanity.

Seriously, no more semi-flaming comments. Its really obnixious and it doesn't help our cause.

His opinions will not likely change. They can be debated, they can be undermined by way of argument. However, they are his to form as he pleases. So long as he keeps them to himself, indeed there is no problem. Best in fact that these individuals band together somewhere and form their own community.

Hopefully somewhere in Siberia.

So being a Jew is a crime to you? WOW! Now I know you are an idiot.

Am I going to jail because I was born human? I gurantee you, Reich, had you been born into a Jewish family, you'd be Jewish. IT IS NOT OUR FAULT FOR OUR RACES.

Seriously, no more semi-flaming comments. Its really obnixious and it doesn't help our cause.

*raises eyebrow*

And you are......?

Are you a Jew? If so, then yes, you are.

You need to be committed.

The Jews did not kill Jesus, the Romans did. Though I should mention that the Jews COULD have executed Jesus for heresy - but he was crucified (a Roman punishment) not stoned (which is what the Jews would have done).

Except, of course, that you can't put the blame on the Romans. Sure, they drove the nails in, but that's about it.

And the governor answering, said to them: Whether will you of the two to be released unto you? But they said, Barabbas. 22 Pilate saith to them: What shall I do then with Jesus that is called Christ? They say all: Let him be crucified. 23 The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified. 24 And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it. 25 And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.


Even if he would have been convicted of "heresy," the trial itself was illegal according to your Torah. He was tried at night, when many of the religious authorities were absent, among other things that your Torah directly condemns.

Thus, my point remains: Since when did your Torah stop you? Since when did God serve as an obstacle to your wrong doing?

Daniel 9:26, Jew. Read it. Your own God likes you no more than I do.

Seriously, no more semi-flaming comments. Its really obnixious and it doesn't help our cause.

Excellent advice.

Last time I checked, God loves everyone. Every branch of non-cult Christianity believes that.

Excellent advice.

Eh? A sprinkling of swearing inside a post (that doesn't appear on that sidebar thingy) is still deemed valid, no?

Clearly, I'm not talking about abusive or defamatory language here (nor excessive) ... but come on, that wasn't flammy.

Except, of course, that you can't put the blame on the Romans. Sure, they drove the nails in, but that's about it.



Even if he would have been convicted of "heresy," the trial itself was illegal according to your Torah. He was tried at night, when many of the religious authorities were absent, among other things that your Torah directly condemns.

Thus, my point remains: Since when did your Torah stop you? Since when did God serve as an obstacle to your wrong doing?

Daniel 9:26, Jew. Read it.

And what about my point, or are you just going to ignore it and continue to deny the real truth of the matter which is that Jesus said to love all people and if you do not do this then you are not truly a christian.

The Fourth Holy Reich, you're truly a relic and I mean that in the most disparaging way possible.

Eh? A sprinkling of swearing inside a post (that doesn't appear on that sidebar thingy) was deemed valid, no?

Clearly, I'm not talking about abusvie or defamatory language here... but come on, that wasn't flammy.

You said he shits on humanity.

The Jews did not kill Jesus, the Romans did. Though I should mention that the Jews COULD have executed Jesus for heresy - but he was crucified (a Roman punishment) not stoned (which is what the Jews would have done).

I appreciate your honesty. I feel the same about you. Now that we have determined that the two of us are mortal enemies, shall we get on with the debate?

CALLING HIM AND THE REST OF US PEOPLE THAT ARE OF JEWISH HERITAGE IS NOT OKAY. IF YOU HAD AN OUNCE OF REAON IN YOU, YOU'D KNOW THAT.
I meant him and me, us personally. And if we just reject his arguments outright, it gives him more reason to hate us. By openly debating him, we demonstrate that we are capable of reason.
Though I should mention that I have already determined that this guy is both capable of reason and bases his arguments on principles that are truly vile by our standards, thus he will not see our arguments as valid. However, I cannot allow his claims to go unanswered, as that would give him a measure of victory. Here, I debate on behalf of my people, my religion, and my G-d.

And what about my point, or are you just going to ignore it and continue to deny the real truth of the matter which is that Jesus said to love all people and if you do not do this then you are not truly a christian.

You are commiting the fallacy of accident.

His opinions will not likely change. They can be debated, they can be undermined by way of argument. However, they are his to form as he pleases. So long as he keeps them to himself, indeed there is no problem. Best in fact that these individuals band together somewhere and form their own community.


I'm guessing in the region of 40 million?

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ Here's his site

You said he shits on humanity.

....aaaannnnnd?

I don't think you realise this: You don't argue with Nazi's. It's physically impossible. You shout louder than they can to drown out their horrid ramblings. It really is the only way.

Is this the point to blame the Jews for the sinking of the titanic?

Whats that you say?
The jews didn't do it it was an iceberg!

Iceberg, Goldberg whats the difference

Did I get the timing right huh huh did I

You are commiting the fallacy of accident.

Ever heard the story of the boy who cried Fallacy?

....aaaannnnnd?

I don't think you realise this: You don't argue with Nazi's. It's physically impossible. You shout louder than they can to drown out their horrid ramblings. It really is the only way.
True that.

....aaaannnnnd?

I don't think you realise this: You don't argue with Nazi's. It's physically impossible. You shout louder than they can to drown out their horrid ramblings. It really is the only way.

And throw them in jail and move them to the heart of Siberia.

Eh? A sprinkling of swearing inside a post (that doesn't appear on that sidebar thingy) is still deemed valid, no?

Clearly, I'm not talking about abusive or defamatory language here (nor excessive) ... but come on, that wasn't flammy.

Baity. But mild enough that I won't act on it.

I was just making an observation as a player in that post, not taking Moderator action, so it's currently rather a moot point anyway.

You are commiting the fallacy of accident.

The Fallacy of accident? He came for ALL people not just some and if you say otherwise you're lying through your teeth.

Ever heard the story of the boy who cried Fallacy?

Fallacy is I believe illegal in a number of states

The Fourth Holy Reich:

Do you regonize the legit power of Pope Benedict XVI and The Vatican II?

And throw them in jail and move them to the heart of Siberia.
Why jail/exile them if they perform no crime?

Baity. But mild enough that I won't act on it.

I was just making an observation as a player in that post, not taking Moderator action, so it's currently rather a moot point anyway.

Ok. Point taken and noted for future. *bows*

Apologies if feathers were ruffled HotR.

Now I'm off to sleep as work commences in....5 hours.

Adieu.

The Fallacy of accident? He came for ALL people not just some and if you say otherwise you're lying through your teeth.

You are trying to apply a rule in a manner the rule was not supposed to be applied.

You said he shits on humanity.

Like a dog. Personally, I'm only Jewish racially, I'm a confirmed Christian. Most of my family is Messianic, but that does not mean I will stand for naziism.

The Fourth Holy Reich:

Do you regonize the legit power of Pope Benedict XVI and The Vatican II?

I recognize that Benedict XVI is in fact pope. Until he makes an Ex Cathedra statement about Jews, however, I really don't give a damn what he says if it runs contrary to Tradition.

Vatican II? I recognize that it wasn't a doctrinal council.

Let us see, Daniel 9:26?

"Then, after the sixty-two septets, the anoited one will be cut off and will no longer exist; the people of the prince will come will destroy the city and the Sanctuary; but his end will be [to be swept away as] in a flood. Then, until the end of the war, desolation is decreed."
(Artscroll Translation)

According to the commentaries, this is a reference to the destruction of the Second Temple. How does this show that G-d hates us?

He was a Jew. That's enough for me.

Where is this hatred for Jews coming from?

Right, well I have homework to do. I'll be back, and I expect that this thread will still be going strong by the time I get back.

I recognize that Benedict XVI is in fact pope. Until he makes an Ex Cathedra statement about Jews, however, I really don't give a damn what he says if it runs contrary to Tradition.

Vatican II? I recognize that it wasn't a doctrinal council.

You do realize that traditions within the church change right?

Let us see, Daniel 9:26?

"Then, after the sixty-two septets, the anoited one will be cut off and will no longer exist; the people of the prince will come will destroy the city and the Sanctuary; but his end will be [to be swept away as] in a flood. Then, until the end of the war, desolation is decreed."
(Artscroll Translation)

According to the commentaries, this is a reference to the destruction of the Second Temple. How does this show that G-d hates us?

GOD LOVES EVERYONE. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL, TFHR. EVEN YOU, THOUGH I AM NOT SURE HOW ON EARTH. READ A BIBLE ONCE, PERHAPS THIS WILL HELP.

You are trying to apply a rule in a manner the rule was not supposed to be applied.
I don't think you understand.

Hitler killed not only Jews. Even if you believed that Catholicism allows for an exception to Jesus' rules in the case of Jews, the Nazis still violated a huge number of other Christian rules.

Where is this hatred for Jews coming from?

*Pss* He's a Nazi....

Let us see, Daniel 9:26?

"Then, after the sixty-two septets, the anoited one will be cut off and will no longer exist; the people of the prince will come will destroy the city and the Sanctuary; but his end will be [to be swept away as] in a flood. Then, until the end of the war, desolation is decreed."
(Artscroll Translation)

According to the commentaries, this is a reference to the destruction of the Second Temple. How does this show that G-d hates us?

I'll quote the Douay Rheims' version:

And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: and the people that shall deny him shall not be his. And a people with their leader that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fall

The reference to the destruction of the temple makes it fairly obvious that the Christ reference is to Our Blessed Lord.

I don't think you understand.

Hitler killed not only Jews. Even if you believed that Catholicism allows for an exception to Jesus' rules in the case of Jews, the Nazis still violated a huge number of other Christian rules.

Hitler killed enemies of the state. It is well within the rights of a society to punish criminals. If indeed Hitler considered enemies of the states criminals, then Hitler had every right to do what he did.

You identify yourself as a Jew? You identify yourself as a member of the nation of those Christ killing Pharisees? Fine. Just understand what it entails.

It entails nothing.

The reference to the destruction of the temple makes it fairly obvious that the Christ reference is to Our Blessed Lord.
I doubt I will get an answer, but I'll ask again - why try and reconcile Christianity with Nazism? As I said, there are plenty of either (non)belief systems out there that are far more compatible.

There is no validation ofr justification of nazism in any religion, except perhaps extremist islam. So stop using this argument, there is nothing to back you up that we can't rip to shreds.

You do realize that traditions within the church change right?

If those changes contradict the entirety of the contuinity of Tradition, then I cannot accept them.

Hitler killed enemies of the state. It is well within the rights of a society to punish criminals. If indeed Hitler considered enemies of the states criminals, then Hitler had every right to do what he did.
Which is contrary to what Jesus said.

I despise Jews with a purple passion.

They done nothing to you so why do you dispise them?

Like a dog. Personally, I'm only Jewish racially, I'm a confirmed Christian. Most of my family is Messianic, but that does not mean I will stand for naziism.
How is one Jewish racially, exactly? I thought the Jews were a religion, and Hebrews the relevant ethnicity. The race would be semitic at large, if anything, but not Jewish.

If those changes contradict the entirety of the contuinity of Tradition, then I cannot accept them.

You'd be that caveman who wouldn't use the wheel, wouldn't you?

That caveman died out pretty soon after.

It entails nothing.

Except perhaps, Kosher laws.

I doubt I will get an answer, but I'll ask again - why try and reconcile Christianity with Nazism? As I said, there are plenty of either (non)belief systems out there that are far more compatible.

I tried answering earlier, but I couldn't find your post.

Why try reconcile Christianity with Naziism rather than hold to another belief system?

I love Christ.

How is one Jewish racially, exactly? I thought the Jews were a religion, and Hebrews the relevant ethnicity. The race would be semitic at large, if anything, but not Jewish.

It's come to mean both.

In my NIV Bible Daniel 9:26-27 reads

After the sixty-two 'sevens', the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come destory the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven'. In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple, he will set up an abomination that causes desolation until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

Then you clearly aren't a Jew. To be a Jew is to belong to Israel. To be a Christian is to belong to the Kingdom of God.

You do know that many of the early christians were still jews right?

Like a dog. Personally, I'm only Jewish racially, I'm a confirmed Christian. Most of my family is Messianic, but that does not mean I will stand for naziism.
Did you mean this Jewish race?

http://copland.udel.edu/stu-org/hillel/photo_album/spring05/iahethiopianjews/iahej1.jpg

Jews are NOT a race.

Which is contrary to what Jesus said.

Punishing criminals is not genocide. Genocide is NOT within any society's rights. These victims of Hitler were totally innocent. They commited no crimes. There is no justification for the hatred of any one people or the holocaust in ANY christian texts, excluding those of a Pope's quote from 1,000 years ago.


I believe that I just ripped apart your whole argument :)

Which is contrary to what Jesus said.

Christ said, "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and give unto God that which is God's."

I tried answering earlier, but I couldn't find your post.

Why try reconcile Christianity with Naziism rather than hold to another belief system?

I love Christ.

What's funny is that the two systems are incompatible. You sir, are a contradiction.

If those changes contradict the entirety of the contuinity of Tradition, then I cannot accept them.

Yea. Well the "We hate Jews" is no longer part of the Roman Catholic Church dogma, so you're pretty much screwed on that part.

Punishing criminals is not genocide. Genocide is NOT within any society's rights. These victims of Hitler were totally innocent. They commited no crimes.

Except, of course, that you are wrong. They were enemies of the State.

There is no justification for the hatred of any one people or the holocaust in ANY christian texts, excluding those of a Pope's quote from 1,000 years ago.

I don't exclude those.

It's come to mean both.
The problem being that Hebrews are not the only semitic group.

BEFORE ANYONE ELSE SAYS ANOTHER GOSH DAMNED THING, READ THIS LINK!

http://www.stsimonoftrent.com

Unless you read the entire bloody page in it's entirety, don't post again. I am not going to keep answering this again and again and again.

To quote a website and not respond directly shows that you do not have a backbone to back up what you are saying with your own points. Therefor, you lose by default. You have been served.

Why are you guys still arguing with this clown?

I love Christ.
Then why a political system that is in manifest contravention with your faith? I mean, even fascism I could understand, to a degree, but Nazism?

Then why a political system that is in manifest contravention with your faith?

That's just the case: I don't consider them opposed.

God now I am embarrassed that TFHR is actually Catholic.

The problem being that Hebrews are not the only semitic group.
The idea of Jewish as a race is mainly pushed by some religious and Jews to promote the idea of a Jewish community, and to make one feel like he cannot leave Judaism...We are, after all, not that many. Or, Jewish as a race is pushed by neo-nazis in an attempt to alienate and catagorize Jews.

I do not consider people like Karl Marx Jewish. His parents converted to Christanity, and he was an athiest. There is nothing Jewish about that.

Oh, so now you seek to challenge me in Biblical debate? Welcome to MY home.

Anyway, according to the commentaries, the 'anoited one', which you translate as Jesus Christ, is in fact Agrippa, the last Jewish king (he died prior to the revolt of 67).

Why are you guys still arguing with this clown?
Well, I started, and now I cannot back down, as I am debating on behalf of my people.

Tradition says we must oppose Jewry.

I don't care if some Modernist pope feels sorry for the Jews. I don't care if some Modernist heretic thinks we should get along with the Jews. Tradition says we despise Jews.

Hate to break this to you but you have been so far brainwashed it isn't even funny anymore. Tradition does not say that we must despise jews. As the Lord himself has said, love thy neighbor as thyself. He also does not preach hate either. So by despising jews, you despise the Savior for he was a Jew. You also must despise the early christians as well for most of them were jews too. So tell me, without quoting your precious little website, why do you despise the founders of the church for?

This thread has gone from page one to page 24 in 2 hours.

Way to Go NSG.

Oh, so now you seek to challenge me in Biblical debate? Welcome to MY home.

Anyway, according to the commentaries, the 'anoited one', which you translate as Jesus Christ, is in fact Agrippa, the last Jewish king (he died prior to the revolt of 67).

Agrippa was slain by his own people?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allegheny County 2 View Post
Where is this hatred for Jews coming from?

*Pss* He's a Nazi....

He's a what???

You're kidding us!

How quaint.

This thread has gone from page one to page 24 in 2 hours.

Way to Go NSG.

and I started this thread! Whoooo! *runs around with hands up in the air*

Agrippa was slain by his own people?

It doesn't say. The commentaries seem to imply that he died of natural causes.

That's just the case: I don't consider them opposed.
Whatever pleases you I suppose. I shifted from Protestantism to a form of Deism (and Satanism, to a degree) because although the former is outwardly compatible with my political ideals, it comes in direct contravention with them on a deeper level. Consistency is important.

and I started this thread! Whoooo! *runs around with hands up in the air*

You DO realize you've created something with similar characteristics of a malignant tumor right?

It doesn't say. The commentaries seem to imply that he died of natural causes.

Precisely. Compare Daniel 9:26 to the "suffering servant" story in Isaiah.

Agrippa doesn't measure up to that combined description.

Christ, however...

Besides, my version of Daniel specifically says "The people that deny him shall not be his."

As far as I know, Agrippa wasn't openly denied nor killed by his own people.

Jesus was.

You are trying to apply a rule in a manner the rule was not supposed to be applied.

There is no verse in the bible that says something like "The jew sucketh at life go out and kill him" In fact Jesus loved the jews that hated him. If he didn't he probably would have just killed all of them. But instead he loved them even though they hated him. As a christian it says that you should follow his example, not some crazy conservative pope.

It doesn't say. The commentaries seem to imply that he died of natural causes.

You know, he got himself in a tangle here. If he thinks this passage is in refrence to the Lord Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ was killed by his own people, then TFHR would have to admit that Jesus was a jew.

There is no verse in the bible that says something like "The jew sucketh at life go out and kill him" In fact Jesus loved the jews that hated him. If he didn't he probably would have just killed all of them. But instead he loved them even though they hated him. As a christian it says that you should follow his example, not some crazy conservative pope.

Not 1 pope. Many popes. Many saints. Many doctors of the Church.

You know, he got himself in a tangle here. If he thinks this passage is in refrence to the Lord Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ was killed by his own people, then TFHR would have to admit that Jesus was a jew.

Which is frankly a moot point.

TFHR -

I think that we would all benefit from you roundly summing up your beliefs. From what I can gather you are a fundemental catholic, who relates to the NAZI party. But if you could sum up which parts of these two you believe in that would be terribly helpful for all of our understanding. Thanks.

We got lucky. Out of all the threads about Nazism, this one was lucky enough to attract an actual Nazi.

As for you, THFR, I am unfamiliar with the 'suffering servant' story. Please give me chapter and verse, so I may answer your argument.



I can't believe this. Here I am, Artscroll Tanach in hand, debating the Bible with a Nazi on an Internet forum.

You DO realize you've created something with similar characteristics of a malignant tumor right?

Meh, just add some chemo and radiation and call me in the morning.

Forgive them father, for they know not what they do.

Game, set and match.

Precisely. Compare Daniel 9:26 to the "suffering servant" story in Isaiah.

Agrippa doesn't measure up to that combined description.

Christ, however...

Besides, my version of Daniel specifically says "The people that deny him shall not be his."

As far as I know, Agrippa wasn't openly denied nor killed by his own people.

Jesus was.

the verse in daniel could easily be interrupted as anyone who denies christ as savior is not his. Does that mean that christians should go out and kill anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus? Of course not. It means that Christians should be peacefully converting them to believing in him.

Which is frankly a moot point.

Not really, if you invertently admitted that Jesus was a Jew then you would have to admit that you hate Jesus because he is a Jew.

Not 1 pope. Many popes. Many saints. Many doctors of the Church.

And there are many others that disagree with that assumption. Many who aren't Catholic but still christians that disagree. Jesus himself would disagree considering he was jewish. Many of his disciples, while still converting to christianity, considered themselves jewish by birth.

Not really, if you invertently admitted that Jesus was a Jew then you would have to admit that you hate Jesus because he is a Jew.

Transitive property: If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

So if he hates all Jews, and Jesus is a Jew, then he hates Jesus. But he hates Jews because he's a Christian, so he he hates Jesus because he "loves" Him.

The Jews did not kill Jesus, the Romans did. Though I should mention that the Jews COULD have executed Jesus for heresy - but he was crucified (a Roman punishment) not stoned (which is what the Jews would have done).

Actually, it was the jews that actually killed him for the brought the charges but could not do anything without Pilate's permission. He gave them a choice between Barabas and Jesus and the people choose Barabas thus condemning Jesus to the Cross.

Unless you can show that I indeed know nothing (and I do), then your statement is false. Back up your statements or stfu.

You know, you can go pray to your silly cult of personality all you want. You have the right. But don't expect anyone to like you for it. Yes, I'm ethnically Jewish. Go ahead, and spread your hate. I don't care. You are the one who doesn't understand the implications of your ideology.

As for you, THFR, I am unfamiliar with the 'suffering servant' story. Please give me chapter and verse, so I may answer your argument.

Isaias 53.

I can't believe this. Here I am, Artscroll Tanach in hand, debating the Bible with a Nazi on an Internet forum.

Crazy world.

Also, consider Genesis 25:23, and Jeremiah 11:9-10

Transitive property: If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

So if he hates all Jews, and Jesus is a Jew, then he hates Jesus. But he hates Jews because he's a Christian, so he he hates Jesus because he "loves" Him.

.....umm, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

Yes, it is the opinion of many Catholic modernists that Jews are ok. As a Catholic Traditionalist, I cannot accept their opinion is valid. It completely contradicts the continuity of Church Tradition.

I hate to break this to you but there really is no Catholic Tradition of hating Jews. What you are referring to is the Pope's own hatred for Jews. Ironic that you say that it was the Pope's personal opinion that the Holocaust was bad but yet you take the pope's of the past at their words without questioning what they actually personally believe. Talk about hypocritical thinking.

the verse in daniel could easily be interrupted as anyone who denies christ as savior is not his. Does that mean that christians should go out and kill anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus?

Deus lo volt!

http://www.anthonyflood.com/jesusanarchist15.htm

Interesting little tidbit for the literalists. Jesus and Christianity say worldly courts don't have authority. Ergo, Christianity does not condone the destruction of "enemies of the state".

.....umm, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?

Reinforcing. :)

Isaias 53.



Crazy world.

Also, consider Genesis 25:23, and Jeremiah 11:9-10

The genesis verse refers to the story of Jacob and Esau in which Esau was tricked out of his birth right by the, the father of the Jewish people, Jacob. The jeremiah verse, is inconsequencaly considering that the jews broke their covenant with god many times and he eventually forgave them each time.

I hate to break this to you but there really is no Catholic Tradition of hating Jews. What you are referring to is the Pope's own hatred for Jews.

Not just 1 pope. MANY popes, Saints, and doctor's of the Church.

Isaias 53.



Crazy world.

Also, consider Genesis 25:23, and Jeremiah 11:9-10

I always though that Genesis 25:23 was talking about the birth of Judaism and Islam, but I could be wrong.

As for Jeremiah 11:9-10, that is old testament. Yes they've broken the old Covenant, but Jesus Christ was the new Covenant that was signed in his blood.

The genesis verse refers to the story of Jacob and Esau in which Esau was tricked out of his birth right by the, the father of the Jewish people, Jacob.

And he answering said: Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be divided out of thy womb, and one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger.

The jeremiah verse, is inconsequencaly considering that the jews broke their covenant with god many times and he eventually forgave them each time.

They are returned to the former iniquities of their fathers, who refused to hear my words: so these likewise have gone after strange gods, to serve them: the house of Israel, and the house of Juda have made void my covenant, which I made with their fathers.


Bolded for emphasis.

None just 1 pope. MANY popes, Saints, and doctor's of the Church.

An argument based on appeals to authority and popularity. Tsk tsk.

Daniel 9:26, Jew. Read it. Your own God likes you no more than I do.

Daniel 9:26-->After this period of sixty-two sets of seven, the Anointed One will be killed , appearing to have accomplished nothing, and a ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end."

Now tell me where in that verse (which is talking about end time events in case you did not figure that out) does God hate His own people?

An argument based on appeals to authority and popularity. Tsk tsk.

Technically! This isn't argumentum ad verecundiam. That only applies when the authorities are unqualified. Because these authorities were offered for traditional Catholic teaching, these are technically valid authorities.

That said, it wasn't an appeal to popularity. I was appealing to multiple valid authorities.

GOD LOVES EVERYONE. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL, TFHR. EVEN YOU, THOUGH I AM NOT SURE HOW ON EARTH. READ A BIBLE ONCE, PERHAPS THIS WILL HELP.

Why are you yelling at him for? He knows that God loves everyone. Its the Fourth Riech you should be yelling at. Besides, it isn't polite to type all in caps anyway.

I'll quote the Douay Rheims' version:



The reference to the destruction of the temple makes it fairly obvious that the Christ reference is to Our Blessed Lord.

You know? I have studied the Bible in depth. As a Christian, I must point out to you that by hating a specific religion, you are not acting as a proper christian should. I am in no way judging you based on religious beliefs. That is not my job. However, you have violated that by judging the Jews as worthy of being executed for what happened a couple thousand years ago. As the Bible states itself, judge not less you yourself be judged in the same manner.

You know? I have studied the Bible in depth. As a Christian, I must point out to you that by hating a specific religion, you are not acting as a proper christian should. I am in no way judging you based on religious beliefs. That is not my job. However, you have violated that by judging the Jews as worthy of being executed for what happened a couple thousand years ago. As the Bible states itself, judge not less you yourself be judged in the same manner.


Ad hominem abusive, accident, and tu quoque.

If those changes contradict the entirety of the contuinity of Tradition, then I cannot accept them.

In that case then, you are not considered a catholic if you do not accept them.

In that case then, you are not considered a catholic if you do not accept them.

Are you a Catholic?

In my NIV Bible Daniel 9:26-27 reads

After the sixty-two 'sevens', the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come destory the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven'. In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple, he will set up an abomination that causes desolation until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

Do I smell verses dealing with the Tribulation and the Great Tribulation? By gollie I do.

Ad hominem abusive, accident, and tu quoque.

Stop hiding behind your cries of "fallacy".

Technically! This isn't argumentum ad verecundiam. That only applies when the authorities are unqualified. Because these authorities were offered for traditional Catholic teaching, these are technically valid authorities.

That said, it wasn't an appeal to popularity. I was appealing to multiple valid authorities.

I was making a point about throwing fallacies around. ;)

But also keep in mind, being a valid human authority does not guarantee correctness.

Christ said, "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and give unto God that which is God's."

Talk about out of context. That verse deals with Taxes and tything.

I was making a point about throwing fallacies around. ;)

Throwing fallacies around? I am not throwing fallacies around. I am merely calling them as I see them. Did anyone here ever take a logic class?

But also keep in mind, being a valid human authority does not guarantee correctness.

Well, certainly, that is usually true, thus the reason that appeal to authority is a type of inductive reasoning. That doesn't necessarily rule out the argument itself, though. Appeal to a valid authority certainly is a form of strong induction, and I would presume that it becomes more inductively strong as more valid authorities are cited. No?

Almost 400 posts last time I checked
3 hours
Is this a record?

If your aim is to convince the other person that to change their beliefs, then it's rather pointless. I don't think anyone's beliefs will change based on what some guy on an internet forum said.

I cannot forsee TFHR saying, "You guys are right! I was wrong! I LOVE JEWS!"

Talk about out of context. That verse deals with Taxes and tything.

Is that what he said?

Precisely. Compare Daniel 9:26 to the "suffering servant" story in Isaiah.

Agrippa doesn't measure up to that combined description.

Christ, however...

Besides, my version of Daniel specifically says "The people that deny him shall not be his."

As far as I know, Agrippa wasn't openly denied nor killed by his own people.

Jesus was.

Now back that up with proof. I'll believe the person you are disagreeing with over you for I have studied the Bible indepth, as well as end time events... and it seems to match. Just because one dies of natural causes does not mean one is not suffering.

Now back that up with proof. I'll believe the person you are disagreeing with over you for I have studied the Bible indepth, as well as end time events... and it seems to match. Just because one dies of natural causes does not mean one is not suffering.

If one dies of natural causes, then clearly, he wasn't slain.

We got lucky. Out of all the threads about Nazism, this one was lucky enough to attract an actual Nazi.

As for you, THFR, I am unfamiliar with the 'suffering servant' story. Please give me chapter and verse, so I may answer your argument.



I can't believe this. Here I am, Artscroll Tanach in hand, debating the Bible with a Nazi on an Internet forum.

I have my NLT Bible in hand so we can gang up on him together. Christian and Jew debating on the same side.

The genesis verse refers to the story of Jacob and Esau in which Esau was tricked out of his birth right by the, the father of the Jewish people, Jacob. The jeremiah verse, is inconsequencaly considering that the jews broke their covenant with god many times and he eventually forgave them each time.

Goes to show he doesn't know the Bible either.

The T-4 Euthanasia program wasn't part of the holocaust. Also, even the majority of NAZIs didn't agree with it. It was a very controversial program that was eventually stopped because the masses didn't like it.

The T-4 Euthanasia program can't really be used to undermine the actual NAZI philosophy. Even most NAZIs didn't agree with it.



I am perfectly aware of that, and that's part of the reason I say it wasn't a genocide. Sure, Jews (whom I don't consider a race) were executed, but so were homosexuals, POWs, gypsies, and various others.

As far as I am concerned, it was a legally sanctioned internment and execution of enemies of the State.



Is that an appeal to pity?

My opinions on this matter:

He's young, and supporting the Nazi's makes people pay attention, which he likes.
He's never seen real suffering of any kind. I quite imagine that if you were given a gun and told to shoot a random Muslim, you'd probably piss yourself, and if you went ahead and just shot the guy, we would come to opinion three:
You're a sociopath. Welcome to the wide world of no emotions!

Throwing fallacies around? I am not throwing fallacies around. I am merely calling them as I see them. Did anyone here ever take a logic class?

I've taken logic as well as a variety of upper-level philosophy courses. Yes, you're throwing fallacies around.

Well, certainly, that is usually true, thus the reason that appeal to authority is a type of inductive reasoning. That doesn't necessarily rule out the argument itself, though. Appeal to a valid authority certainly is a form of strong induction, and I would presume that it becomes more inductively strong as more valid authorities are cited. No?

None of which detracts in any way from my point.

Not just 1 pope. MANY popes, Saints, and doctor's of the Church.

So you are taking the personal opinions of people from the past but will not take the personal opinions of so called modernists? hypocrit.

Excuse me, Mr. Reich sir, but could I ask you something?

Why is it that Jews are responsible for the actions of their ancestors but you and those who believe what you believe are not? Why are the Jews hated when you love Jesus, who--assuming he existed--was a Jew, and thus, according to your logic, should also be hated? Why do you believe the state is nigh holy? Why, in essence, do you believe what you do?

Bolded for emphasis.

Stop taking the Bible out of Context please.

Ad hominem abusive, accident, and tu quoque.

Yea right. If you believe that was an Ad hominem for disagreeing with you, I have a bridge for sale in san francisco.

Are you a Catholic?

My father was. My grandfather was, my half-sister is, most of my relatives on my father's side of the family are catholics and I attended a catholic school. In order to be catholic, you must obey what the pope says. If the pope says that the jews are not to be persecuted then you must, by church law, to accept that as what the pope says goes. The current pope has says that the Holocaust was not a good thing. By your own words, you must accept that. According to the catholic faith, you must accept that. Failure to do so, is grounds for excommunication.

But after reading the whole thread I couldn't resist...

TFHR- I still don't understand how you can love Christ and maintain this "I hate jews" belief. It doesn't compute. You can quote the Bible and various religious sources all day, but I'd like to hear an original thought from you. "Go read the link"...I think not. I came to this forum to read in this forum. If you can't defend your argument using your own words right here, right now, it suggests that you have no idea what you really believe and you're just holding on to a belief system that makes you feel safe.

That's ok. We all need to feel safe. What's not ok is that you've made it an "us vs. them" thing, when it doesn't need to be. The fact that you love Christ is great. It doesn't make you Christ-like. You have to act that way, which you're not doing by hating Jews for what amounts to something someone said a couple of centuries ago.

Here's a bright idea...go down to the local library and take out every book on Hitler and Nazism that you can find. Read them all, and then decide if you really want to support the ideas of a man who tried to take over the world, or the man who sacrificed his life so that all would be washed free of sin. But for Pete's sake, pick one!

I've taken logic as well as a variety of upper-level philosophy courses. Yes, you're throwing fallacies around.

Like? Feel free to point out when I commit such a fallacy.

None of which detracts in any way from my point.

Your point that there is room for error? Well, no, I suppose not. That doesn't infer that the argument itself is bad though.

Isaias 53.



Crazy world.

Also, consider Genesis 25:23, and Jeremiah 11:9-10

I always though that Genesis 25:23 was talking about the birth of Judaism and Islam, but I could be wrong.

As for Jeremiah 11:9-10, that is old testament. Yes they've broken the old Covenant, but Jesus Christ was the new Covenant that was signed in his blood.

I'm a proud National Socialist.

My father was. My grandfather was, my half-sister is, most of my relatives on my father's side of the family are catholics and I attended a catholic school.

But you aren't a Catholic.

In order to be catholic, you must obey what the pope says.

Except, you mistaken. To be A Cathoic, one must be under the authority of the pope. Do I consider Benedict the true Pope? Yeah. Does that mean I have to accept every word that comes out of his mouth? No. If he doesn't speak Ex Cathedra, then I am free to take it with a grain of salt.

Failure to do so, is grounds for excommunication.

Feel free to cite the grounds.

I always though that Genesis 25:23 was talking about the birth of Judaism and Islam, but I could be wrong.

Gentiles vs Jews

As for Jeremiah 11:9-10, that is old testament. Yes they've broken the old Covenant, but Jesus Christ was the new Covenant that was signed in his blood.

Jews don't accept Christ. That is the point. The old covenent is void. They are no longer God's people. We are.

Is that what he said?

This is the problem I have when people quote verses. They only take one verse and not the set of verses.

Matthew 22:15-22 Then the Pharisees met together to plot how to trap Jesus into saying something for which he could be arrested. They sent some of the disciples, along with the supporters of Herod to meet with him. "Teacher," they said, "we know how honest you are. You teach the way of God truthfully. You are impartial and don't play favorites. Now tell us what you think about this: Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" But Jesus knew their evil motives. "You hypocrites!"he said. "Why are you trying to trap me? Here,show me the coin used for the tax." When they handed him a Roman coin, he asked,"Whose picture and title are stamped on it?" "Caesar's," they replied. "Well then," he said, "give to caesar what belong to caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply amazed them and they went away.

You have been served.

Jews don't accept Christ. That is the point. The old covenent is void. They are no longer God's people. We are.

Yup, thats god alright, looking for any old group of idiots who will accept him.

I've never figured out why christians tolerate a god who only took them on
when his chosen people rejected him.

Like? Feel free to point out when I commit such a fallacy.

Why bother? People have been pointing out rather grave errors in your reasoning for well over 20 pages now, and it hasn't seemed to bother you in the slightest.

That's why it strikes me as particularly ironic that you accuse others of fallacious arguments.

Your point that there is room for error? Well, no, I suppose not. That doesn't infer that the argument itself is bad though.

A fine illustration of the fact that a good argument is insufficient for truth.

Gentiles vs Jews

Jews don't accept Christ. That is the point. The old covenent is void. They are no longer God's people. We are.

We've been over this on another thread. Either god is all-powerful and also evil, or he is not all powerful and doesn't fit the beliefs of religious dogma.

Why bother? People have been pointing out rather grave errors in your reasoning for well over 20 pages now, and it hasn't seemed to bother you in the slightest.

Except, of course, that the supposed "errors" are nonsensical:

"Jesus was a Jew." That's irrelevent.

A fine illustration of the fact that a good argument is insufficient for truth.

Do you deny the theory of gravity on those grounds?

But you aren't a Catholic.

No not me. To many rules and if I can't get to church I go to hell according to them.

Except, you mistaken. To be A Cathoic, one must be under the authority of the pope. Do I consider Benedict the true Pope? Yeah. Does that mean I have to accept every word that comes out of his mouth? No.

Wrong. You have to accept what comes out of his mouth. You accept what has come out of the mouths of past popes so why not believe what comes out of this Pope's mouth when he is your religious leader? As a catholic, you have to accept what he says or you get excommunicated. Period.

Wrong. You have to accept what comes out of his mouth.

If what is coming out of his mouth is Ex Cathedra, sure.

You accept what has come out of the mouths of past popes so why not believe what comes out of this Pope's mouth when he is your religious leader?

Because more popes for a much longer period of time disagreed with him.

Except, of course, that the supposed "errors" are nonsensical:

"Jesus was a Jew." That's irrelevent.

Not if one espouses a hatred for Jews as you do.

I am not catholic, but I seem to remember that the first pope was the apostle Peter. Wasn't he Jewish?

(Not to mention that Jesus and most of the apostles, and the people who WROTE the Bible were Jewish.)

Tell me, why is the fact that Jesus was Jewish irrelevant?

The covenant has not been abrogated. True, we broke it a few times, but that does not mean it has been eliminated. The covenant still stands, and Jews are still bound by it.

The covenant has not been abrogated. True, we broke it a few times, but that does not mean it has been eliminated. The covenant still stands, and Jews are still bound by it.

*nods in agreement*

Tell me, why is the fact that Jesus was Jewish irrelevant?

Hmm, that's a good point.

You realize, theres absolutly no point in arguring with this guy. He has a irrational hatred of Jews, is impervious to logic, and is advocating the slaughter of millions. Your not going to gain any ground. It Is impossible to use logic, fact, and decent morals on someone who does not understand any of those.

Except, of course, that the supposed "errors" are nonsensical:

"Jesus was a Jew." That's irrelevent.

See. Doesn't bother you in the slightest.

Wave it off as irrelevant all you like.

Do you deny the theory of gravity on those grounds?

No. But then I haven't denied your assertions about Traditional Catholicism being opposed to Jewry, either.

Taken to burning straw men rather than burning heretics at the stake, have we?

Stalin was a far worse killer of humanity than Hitler.

How many people did Hitler kill? Well, books show about 11 million. He killed 6 million jews and 5 million other ethnic origins.

Now Stalin, he was a sick son-of-a-bitch. His military tactics claimed 8 MILLION OF HIS OWN TROOPS! Even Hitler knew better than to send his troops to certian death. The "Glorious Red Army killed only 2.8 million German/Hungarian/Romanian/Finnish troops while loosing 8 million. 2 million German civilians were murderd.

After WW2, he aided Mao and his slaughter of 30 million. Stalin also armed the north Koreans and pressed them into a war with the western nations. This led to the deaths of perhaps 1,000,000 Koreans, 50,000 Americans, and 100,000 or so Chinese.

So all in all, this entire thing should be about how horrible the nazies were to the jews, gays and so on,
take a fucking look at Stalin and see how horrible he was to his own countrymen.

Honestly, you people disgust me, think about it.
11 million vs. ~43 million. Now you decide who was worse. :upyours:

I'll give Hitler this: if it weren't for him, History class would be boring as fuck. ;_;

The covenant has not been abrogated.

Except, of course, that Jeremiah says that the covenent is voided by your own actions, and Daniel says that you are no longer His people.

Stalin was a far worse killer of humanity than Hitler.

How many people did Hitler kill? Well, books show about 11 million. He killed 6 million jews and 5 million other ethnic origins.

Now Stalin, he was a sick son-of-a-bitch. His military tactics claimed 8 MILLION OF HIS OWN TROOPS! Even Hitler knew better than to send his troops to certian death. The "Glorious Red Army killed only 2.8 million German/Hungarian/Romanian/Finnish troops while loosing 8 million. 2 million German civilians were murderd.

After WW2, he aided Mao and his slaughter of 30 million. Stalin also armed the north Koreans and pressed them into a war with the western nations. This led to the deaths of perhaps 1,000,000 Koreans, 50,000 Americans, and 100,000 or so Chinese.

So all in all, this entire thing should be about how horrible the nazies were to the jews, gays and so on,
take a fucking look at Stalin and see how horrible he was to his own countrymen.

Honestly, you people disgust me, think about it.
11 million vs. ~43 million. Now you decide who was worse. :upyours:

No one is saying Stalin wasn't bad. He was by all means, but this guy is saying Hitler was good. He may pale in comparison with Stalin, but he was an evil man.

Honestly, you people disgust me, think about it.
11 million vs. ~43 million. Now you decide who was worse. :upyours:
This is not a Hitler vs Stalin debate. They were both equally bad for the atrocities they performed, although I must say I also think Stalin was the greater evil, even if just to go by pure statistics. However, this in no way exonerates Hitler...

TFHR:

Why is the fact that Jesus was Jewish irrelevant?

Stalin was a far worse killer of humanity than Hitler.

Honestly, you people disgust me, think about it.
11 million vs. ~43 million. Now you decide who was worse. :upyours:

I don't think that anyone would disagree with that. At least I most definately would not. However, I think all people of this kind are just horrible: Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Mussolini, Idi Amin, this list could go on and on and on. Even the person who murders a single person falls into a catagory with these men in my opinion.

Stalin was a far worse killer of humanity than Hitler.

How many people did Hitler kill? Well, books show about 11 million. He killed 6 million jews and 5 million other ethnic origins.

Now Stalin, he was a sick son-of-a-bitch. His military tactics claimed 8 MILLION OF HIS OWN TROOPS! Even Hitler knew better than to send his troops to certian death. The "Glorious Red Army killed only 2.8 million German/Hungarian/Romanian/Finnish troops while loosing 8 million. 2 million German civilians were murderd.

After WW2, he aided Mao and his slaughter of 30 million. Stalin also armed the north Koreans and pressed them into a war with the western nations. This led to the deaths of perhaps 1,000,000 Koreans, 50,000 Americans, and 100,000 or so Chinese.

So all in all, this entire thing should be about how horrible the nazies were to the jews, gays and so on,
take a fucking look at Stalin and see how horrible he was to his own countrymen.

Honestly, you people disgust me, think about it.
11 million vs. ~43 million. Now you decide who was worse. :upyours:43 million in how many years and by what means? Guess what, if Hitler had been murdering people at the rate he did for the same amount of time that Stalin had, Stalin's body count would pale by comparison. Take only the last three years of Hitler's reign, and it gets even bloodier. There were no signs that he would have slowed down; Hitler was picking up speed.

TFHR:

Why is the fact that Jesus was Jewish irrelevant?Because you're catholic and therefore have no opinion that matters! (kidding)

It's amazing what people manage to convince themselves of: The Jews murdered Jesus, the Catholics were the real cause of the holocaust, Hitler was a Jew that wanted to exterminate the Christians... :rolleyes:

Denial really is the strongest human emotion.

Wrong. You have to accept what comes out of his mouth. You accept what has come out of the mouths of past popes so why not believe what comes out of this Pope's mouth when he is your religious leader? As a catholic, you have to accept what he says or you get excommunicated. Period.

The Pope is a man and thus fallible.

It is our duty to question him and his motives if we are to be true to our faith.

The Pope is a man and thus fallible.

It is our duty to question him and his motives if we are to be true to our faith.

I think the problem here is that TFHR doesn't accept Pope Benedict XVI authority, and while you may not agree with what he states, you still have to recognize that he is the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

43 million in how many years and by what means? Guess what, if Hitler had been murdering people at the rate he did for the same amount of time that Stalin had, Stalin's body count would pale by comparison. Take only the last three years of Hitler's reign, and it gets even bloodier. There were no signs that he would have slowed down; Hitler was picking up speed.
Meh, I think it's meaningless to try and point fingers at this stage. All these men were monsters. How many people they killed exactly doesn't change that.

Except, of course, that Jeremiah says that the covenent is voided by your own actions, and Daniel says that you are no longer His people.That Daniel from the Lion's Den myth?

The Pope is a man and thus fallible.

It is our duty to question him and his motives if we are to be true to our faith.

The Pope is only infallible when speaking on Catholic doctrine, if I'm right. Maybe on dogma only, but he's not infallible otherwise. His opinions do not have to be my opinions.

So, yep, it's our duty as Christians to scrutinize everything that comes across our plates. If God have wanted robots, he would have made us robuts.

The Pope is a man and thus fallible.

It is our duty to question him and his motives if we are to be true to our faith.

Yes he is fallible. The point I was making is that the Fourth Reich is not questioning the popes of the past about what they said about Jews and is taking them at their word whereas he is not taking the current popes at their word. I was trying to show him that if he takes what the early popes say as gospel then he must, by his reasoning, take what the current pope is saying as gospel.

Meh, I think it's meaningless to try and point fingers at this stage. All these men were monsters. How many people they killed exactly doesn't change that.

I agree. I mean it's not like if one guy kills 5,000,000 people, and another kills 5,000,001, the second is qualitatively more evil.

Mao killed 77 million, making him as bad as Hitler and Stalin combined!

Yes he is fallible. The point I was making is that the Fourth Reich is not questioning the popes of the past about what they said about Jews and is taking them at their word whereas he is not taking the current popes at their word. I was trying to show him that if he takes what the early popes say as gospel then he must, by his reasoning, take what the current pope is saying as gospel.

Ahhh. Sorry. Carry on!

I agree. I mean it's not like if one guy kills 5,000,000 people, and another kills 5,000,001, the second is qualitatively more evil.
Yeah, the underlying mentality was exactly the same. Neither had any regard for human life. Perhaps Stalin managed to "score" higher, but it doesn't make old Adolph any better a person.

Meh, I think it's meaningless to try and point fingers at this stage. All these men were monsters. How many people they killed exactly doesn't change that.I disagree to some extent. Might be mainly because I see the "Stalin was worse" argument to vindicate Hitler too often. Also, going by pure statistics can lead to either result, depending on how you present them. Hitler did have Stalin licked in body count per year and that's not including the military victims of WWII. And, like I said, that would be considering his full reign. Perhaps half of the deaths of the entire 12 years of holocaust occurred in the last three. And if you look beyond the statistics to the methods used to kill the people, perhaps the extreme sadism shown by the Nazis counts even more in their disfavor.

Ahhh. Sorry. Carry on!

Its ok. We all make mistakes.

Hitler killed enemies of the state. It is well within the rights of a society to punish criminals. If indeed Hitler considered enemies of the states criminals, then Hitler had every right to do what he did.

Thou shall not kill.

You're about as Christian as a beer-fart.

Thou shall not kill.

As defined as the unlawful taking of a life.

I disagree to some extent. Might be mainly because I see the "Stalin was worse" argument to vindicate Hitler too often. Also, going by pure statistics can lead to either result, depending on how you present them. Hitler did have Stalin licked in body count per year and that's not including the military victims of WWII. And, like I said, that would be considering his full reign. Perhaps half of the deaths of the entire 12 years of holocaust occurred in the last three. And if you look beyond the statistics to the methods used to kill the people, perhaps the extreme sadism shown by the Nazis counts even more in their disfavor.
I see your point. Personally I think apologetics both for Nazism and Stalinism are both equally contemptible; Stalin performed massive atrocities in Eastern Europe - that he was somewhat inefficient is another matter. Neither should his actions after the war in the territories he gained be disregarded. What you say could be reversed - some could then turn around and say Stalin was less of a beast. Perhaps, perhaps not. As always this is subject to interpretation. The reason I dislike either of them is that they had no regard for the individual. As Stalin said "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic", and even more tellingly "No people, no problem." As people, both Hitler and Stalin were the same kind of individual.

As defined as the unlawful taking of a life.

And Genocide is the unlawful taking of life as their only crime is existing.

Now I am off to bed. I have my (ironicly enough) Hitler and Nazism Class at 930 tomorrow morning. Night all.

And Genocide is the unlawful taking of life

Not according to NAZI law at the time.

Not according to NAZI law at the time.

Knowing full well what you're going to answer, you'd be fine with a law that says you, personally, should be executed because...what say...you post on Nation States?

Not according to NAZI law at the time.

The Nuremberg Trial states that this is not grounds to kill innocent people.

As defined as the unlawful taking of a life.Picking and choosing.

As defined as the unlawful taking of a life.

Really, the Ten Commandments define it as "unlawful?"

Nah. Only you. You think your law, and of course Nazi Germany law, supercedes God's law. Sorry, it doesn't. You're going to Hell. You'll like the company there though. :)

The Nuremberg Trial states that this is not grounds to kill innocent people.


Appeal to authority.

Really, the Ten Commandments define it as "unlawful?"

Nah. Only you. You think your law, and of course Nazi Germany law, supercedes God's law. Sorry, it doesn't. You're going to Hell. You'll like the company there though. :)

Now now, let's not turn into him. God is the only one who can say he's going to Hell.

Really, the Ten Commandments define it as "unlawful?"

Nah. Only you. You think your law, and of course Nazi Germany law, supercedes God's law. Sorry, it doesn't. You're going to Hell. You'll like the company there though. :)
He'll be joining us evil capitalists you know. The cool thing is we get to charge admission, and then put them in zoos. :)

Not according to NAZI law at the time.

Nazis however made the fatal mistake of annoying too many people
and therefore being naturally selected out of existence.

The Jewish people who Christians spent many centuries abusing and despising
were popular enough to survive.

Pretend Nazis like yourself are just as quaint but much more repugnant
than pretend druids are.

Is it something you have pride in, belonging to a reinvented cult that
has proven itself to be less successful than judaism and soviet communism?

Not according to NAZI law at the time.Nah. You have to see it in perspective: Was it right for them to do so? Did they know what they were doing was wrong?

The easy answers to this question are no and yes, in that order. They knew exactly what they were doing was wrong, else they wouldn't have tried to cover up their crimes with death marches, mass graves, and "Dachau flowers".

Appeal to authority.

Can you explain why spouting that over and over is different somehow from saying it was legal at the time?

Appeal to authority.What's your argument in favor of the Nazi laws being valid? That the Nazis were in power at the time and that might makes right? What would your argument against the Nuremberg Trial verdicts be? That they had no right to do that even though they were the ones in power, because might doesn't make right?

so im gonna sum this thread up

fourth reich dude is a no good anti semite nazi who gets off on getting people worked up on faceless message boards.
Everyone else is just playing into his game

ignore it yo, hes an ignorant douche bag- dont humor him

Appeal to authority.

Why, yes, your statements that genocide was not morally wrong because it was "NAZI law" is an appeal to authority. Dismissed.

He'll be joining us evil capitalists you know. The cool thing is we get to charge admission, and then put them in zoos.

I wonder what the economy will be based on in Hell. Barter? Souls as currency?

Probably a command economy.

Damn.

Not according to NAZI law at the time.

...And because it was lawful under nazi law at the time, makes it right, why, exactly? IIRC, the laws created under the Nuremberg trials state that these are not grounds to kill someone. Also... just so you know? One of the ten commandments is: THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

...And because it was lawful under nazi law at the time, makes it right, why, exactly? IIRC, the laws created under the Nuremberg trials state that these are not grounds to kill someone. Also... just so you know? One of the ten commandments is: THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

Murder, actually.

I wonder what the economy will be based on in Hell. Barter? Souls as currency?

Probably a command economy.

Damn.
Sounds pretty much like a free-for-all, but if we played our cards right it would be a command economy, yes. Us commanding the Nazi imps. :) Satan is too busy being emo to notice or care.

Syphilus (sp?) is a sexually transmitted disease. Prostitution is a major cause in the spread of STD's. Jews are a major cause of prostitution, pornography, etc. If you disagree, look at Iraq, Ron Jeremy, etc.

Darlin', last time I looked Iraq was pretty much full of Muslims. And what does Ron Jeremy have to do with anything? :confused:

Except that I disagree that force is wrong.

So, based on your argument you would have no problem with force being used against you?

I belive in free speach with people being able to say what they like without fear or intimidation. From politics theres a saying I forget who by but, 'as much as I hate what you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it'.

And thats what I agree with.

I am perfectly aware of that, and that's part of the reason I say it wasn't a genocide. Sure, Jews (whom I don't consider a race) were executed, but so were homosexuals, POWs, gypsies, and various others.

As far as I am concerned, it was a legally sanctioned internment and execution of enemies of the State.


It wasn't ONE genocide, it was MANY genocides.
The Nazi ideology considered Jews as a race, and they choose to exterminate them as a race, so I think that the category of genocide applies.
Also other "races" were considered inferior and dangerous for the supremacy of the aryans, so they were put on the extermination list: gypsies and slavs, just to name some. At least 1 million gypsies and 10 millions non-combatant soviets were killed by the Nazis as a result of that.

The Nazis declared those "races" as enemies of the state, so they could exterminate them. But this was controversial within their own laws - see the need for the "Nacht und Nebel" act, or the fact that the Wannsee conference (the conference about the Endsolution) was secreted.

He'll be joining us evil capitalists you know. The cool thing is we get to charge admission, and then put them in zoos. :)

Cool! Are we allowed to throws things at them? :D

Oh, and for your information, TFHR, Bob Saget is Jewish. Do you hate him? If so, then I shall personally declare a jihad against you. :mad:









No, mods, not literally.

Oh, and for your information, TFHR, Bob Saget is Jewish. Do you hate him? If so, then I shall personally declare a jihad against you. :mad:









No, mods, not literally.

I like it when you type regular size.
Then really small.

I like it when you type regular size.
Then really small.

Lol, why thank you. :p




Thank you very much.

Lol, why thank you. :p




Thank you very much.

You're welcome!

I'm going to bed now. I've been spamming Myspace comments with a ninja.

It's fun.

Not going to get involved in the religious argument because there are FAR more knowledgeable people here...

Not according to NAZI law at the time.

Really? what law would that be exactly?
The name T-4 itsellf was a codename for the euthanasia program. Why exactly would it require a codename if it was a law?

and how about this
This precedent was used to establish a program of killing children with severe disabilities from which the voluntary element soon disappeared. From August the Interior Ministry required doctors and midwives to report all cases of newborns with severe disabilities. Those to be killed were "all children under three years of age in whom any of the following 'serious hereditary diseases' were 'suspected': idiocy and mongolism (especially when associated with blindness and deafness); microcephaly; hydrocephaly; malformations of all kinds, especially of limbs, head, and spinal column; and paralysis, including spastic conditions." The reports were assessed by a panel of medical experts, of whom three were required to give their approval before a child could be killed.

"Various methods of deception were used to gain consent – particularly in Catholic areas where parents were generally uncooperative. Parents were told that their children were being sent to “Special Sections” for children where they would receive improved care. The children sent to these centres were kept for "assessment" for a few weeks and then killed by lethal injection, their deaths recorded as "pneumonia". Autopsies were usually performed, and brain samples were taken to be used for medical research. This apparently helped to ease the consciences of many of those involved, since it gave them the feeling that the children had not died in vain and that the whole program had a genuine medical purpose."

"Patients were transferred from their institutions to the killing centres in buses operated by teams of SS men wearing white coats to give an air of medical authenticity. To prevent the families and the doctors of the patients tracing them, they were often sent to "transit" centres in major hospitals where they were allegedly "assessed" before being moved again to "special treatment" centres. (The expression "special treatment" (sonderbehandlung) was later widely employed as a euphemism for killing during the extermination of the Jews.) Families were sent letters explaining that owing to wartime regulations it would not be possible to visit relatives in these centres. In fact most of these patients were killed within 24 hours of arriving at the centres, and their bodies cremated. For every person killed, a death certificate was prepared, giving a false but plausible cause of death, and sent to the family along with an urn of ashes (random ashes, since the victims were cremated en masse). The preparation of thousands of falsified death certificates in fact took up most of the working day of the doctors who operated the centres."

# Lifton, p52, p.60, p71, p74

finally..

"Hitler told Bouhler at the outset that “the Führer’s Chancellery must under no circumstances be seen to be active in this matter.” There was a particular need for caution in Catholic areas, which after the annexations of Austria and the Sudetenland in 1938 included nearly half the population of Greater Germany, and where public opinion could be expected to be hostile. In March 1940 a confidential report from the SD in Austria warned that the killing program must be implemented with stealth “in order to avoid a probable backlash of public opinion during the war"."

Padfield, p.261, p.304


SO HOW WAS IT LEGAL???

technically speaking, any christian, muslim or jew, is a semite. so he cant really be an anti-semite.

Not according to NAZI law at the time.

And when the Germans found out about the "Final Solution" many Germans were abhorred by it.

Appeal to authority.

Don't you just love that when presented with facts he cries appeal to authority or ad homen attacks?

Wow, I'm surprised that this subject/posters kept me reading for the full 33 pages considering the amount of crap eminating from many of the posts (mostly by the TFHR). But impressive posting speed nonetheless.

Ich habe oft gesagt, dass in der USA es keine Nazionalsozialisten gibt, die Deutsch verstehen. Ich glaube dass es sehr komisch ist, weil viele Nazis koennen Deutsch nicht verstehen.

Don't you just love that when presented with facts he cries appeal to authority or ad homen attacks?

explain these terms. havent been on forum long, people have benn using phrases i dont understand.

explain these terms. havent been on forum long, people have benn using phrases i dont understand.
Wtf? You've been here over six months, you have 1k posts...

Ich habe oft gesagt, dass in der USA es keine Nazionalsozialisten gibt, die Deutsch verstehen. Ich glaube dass es sehr komisch ist, weil viele Nazis koennen Deutsch nicht verstehen.

why say it in german? most people dont understand. something about no nazism in american. but some germans dont understand.

Wtf? You've been here over six months, you have 1k posts...

yeah but sometimes i ask what do things mean and people dont reply. not having luck in try to learn by peoples response.

why say it in german? most people dont understand. something about no nazism in american. but some germans dont understand.

I said I've always found it funny how the vast bulk of Nazis you meet don't speak German.

Damn it, I keep missing all the good threads. I even missed it when my own thread sparked off into a huge debate with that nazi. :mad:

The problem THFR seems to be experiencing is one common to most virulent rascists. It is the feeling of lolw self worth, where to avoid feeling bad about oneself you must find a way to feel superior to everyone else. Its a culture of blame.

"Late for work? Fucking blacks too lazy to drive the bus properly."
" No girlfriend? Fucking immigrants are taking our women."
" No money? Fucking jews, leeching all our money away."

Its a great way of blaming everyone else except yourself and your own society. And of course for insecure and insignificant little people it really can boost their ego and self worth. I still maintain that Hitler was probably the worst case of "little man syndrome" the world has ever seen. :D

explain these terms. havent been on forum long, people have benn using phrases i dont understand.

Ad hominem - dictionary.com
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

Appeal to authority
another fallacy
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious

Ollie- Agreed.

Gorias- Google is your friend, then. Or Wikipedia. Don't be afraid to look it up yourself. ;)

Ollie- Agreed.

Gorias- Google is your friend, then. Or Wikipedia. Don't be afraid to look it up yourself. ;)

i thought they were forum terms. like trolling, which i found out that it come the word, troll as in the beastie thing, but the troll which is a kind of fishing. i dont like looking up things on google. it annoys me.