Was Hitler being fair to the Jews ?

[2PhiloVoid]

And so we prefer to take an antiquated and much disputed suite of ethics from controversial, variously interpreted scripture? Hardly a convincing choice.

Did you happen to read post #21 above? If not, you might take a moment and peruse it.

Morever, I don't expect a biblical (or New Testament) moral viewpoint to somehow 'be' self-evident to any one person. It can't be and it won't be, usually.

And if you have your own 'notions' of ethics by which you want evaluate Hitler's monstrosities, then by all means apply those notions. Just don't get into the temptation to think that a Human Rights agenda and zeitgeist, as valuable as that can be, should somehow trump every other consideration one such as myself might make in the fields of Axiology and Metaphysics.

 

[Ophiolite]

Did you happen to read post #21 above? If not, you might take a moment and peruse it.

Yes. I read it. I see zero relevance to my post. While you have quoted my post and presumably have read it, you do not appear to have understood it. What may I do to help you over that difficulty?

Morever, I don't expect a biblical (or New Testament) moral viewpoint to somehow 'be' self-evident to any one person. It can't be and it won't be, usually.

Which is consistent with my use of the phrase " variously interpreted scripture".

And if you have your own 'notions' of ethics by which you want evaluate Hitler's monstrosities, then by all means apply those notions.

How kind of you, though I doubt I needed your permission.

Just don't get into the temptation to think that a Human Rights agenda and zeitgeist, as valuable as that can be, should somehow trump every other consideration one such as myself might make in the fields of Axiology and Metaphysics.

I've noticed that one weakness of people who are full of themselves is that they have no room for anything previously unencountered. Here you seem guilty of a false dichotomy. Perhaps you can revisit my original observation and try to give a relevant and proper answer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes. I read it. I see zero relevance to my post.

Well, I'm sorry that you don't see any relevance in it. Of course, from where I'm sitting, it's difficult for me to know just how much of post #21 (and #19) you actually engaged and learned from in order to bring into your overall matrix of considerations.

While you have quoted my post and presumably have read it, you do not appear to have understood it. What may I do to help you over that difficulty?

You could probably start by beginning more cordially with me than simply showing up and throwing a flat-out "Why?" at me [see post #38], followed up by a rhetorical question posed to me, phrased in a derogatory fashion (as recaptured below)

And so we prefer to take an antiquated and much disputed suite of ethics from controversial, variously interpreted scripture? Hardly a convincing choice.

[Again, this is your question and statement from post #40---not mine.]​

Which is consistent with my use of the phrase " variously interpreted scripture".

Sure, like all things ethical, there can be different ideas and interpretations about the Bible, just as there are in various ethical frameworks and moral issues over which we have concern. Neither provides any of us a self-evident Absolute for us all to go by ...

How kind of you, though I doubt I needed your permission.

I wasn't offering any.

I've noticed that one weakness of people who are full of themselves is that they have no room for anything previously unencountered. Here you seem guilty of a false dichotomy. Perhaps you can revisit my original observation and try to give a relevant and proper answer.

Perhaps you can back up, start from the beginning, come back through the front door and, rather than bringing a bunch of misconceptions with you, leave those at the door.

Oh, and one more thing: when you come back through the door, alleviate yourself of the additional notion that you're just going to "show up" and roll me.

Thank you.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, I'm sorry that you don't see any relevance in it. Of course, from where I'm sitting, it's difficult for me to know just how much of post #21 (and #19) you actually engaged and learned from in order to bring into your overall matrix of considerations.

This is the comment of yours I was questioning:

It's a mistake to foist modern criteria by which we think we're ethically evaluating Hitler and then reapply that to the Bible.

Posts #19 and #21 detail sources for understanding contemporary views on anti-semitism, coupled with a summary of how you would approach a considered answer to the OP. Interesting, but none of it establishing why your statement should be considered valid, or even plausible.

You could probably start by beginning more cordially with me than simply showing up and throwing a flat-out "Why?"

In my book short questions are more polite than long rambling ones. Be aware that question was orginally five or six sentences long. In that earlier version I offered my views of why you might have said what you said and offered counterpoints. It was messy and I had no confidence I hadn't entirely missed your reasoning. A simple "why" matched the sense of my enquiry and afforded you no restriction on how you answered.

, followed up by a rhetorical question posed to me, phrased in a derogatory fashion (as recaptured below)

You may consider it derogatory. I consider it honest and direct. This is the apologetics section. I have no wish to deceive other members as to my views. To convey my position without triggering your sensitivities would have taken ten times as many words. That would offend my sense of right behaviour.

I wasn't offering any.

These are your words: "And if you have your own 'notions' of ethics by which you want evaluate Hitler's monstrosities, then by all means apply those notions."
Grammatically and lexically that is giving permission.

Perhaps you can back up, start from the beginning, come back through the front door and, rather than bringing a bunch of misconceptions with you, leave those at the door.

My "Why" was specifically designed to avoid misconceptions. You provided an answer I found unconvincing. I made you aware of that and explained why. The next step in a productive dialogue involves you addressing my observations in an explanatory manner. I can wait.

Oh, and one more thing: when you come back through the door, alleviate yourself of the additional notion that you're just going to "show up" and roll me.

I have no idea what that means, but whatever issues you think you have with me please drop them and address the issues.

Thank you.

A thank you at the end of post in which you have made a number of personal remarks comes across as insincere. I prefer you stop that.

 

[Lukaris]

Perhaps reading about the life of anti Nazi, Lutheran Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a good example of a Christian response to Hitler.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

THIS THREAD DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE SOP OF THIS FORUM

The purpose of the Christian Apologetics forum in the Outreach category is to give non-Christians the opportunity to start threads to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, and Christians the opportunity to rationally defend their beliefs.​

MOD HAT OFF​