The White Rose
Some years ago I became a admirer of a tiny band of students who called themselves the White Rose. It started with five students, all in the early 20s from Munich University. The White Rose had but a short life, from June 1942 to February 1943 but these brave students should never be forgotten.
At a time when the Nazi dictatorship was at its height of power these students printed leaflets questioning the basic ideas of national socialism. They appealed to a tradition of human rights and classical liberalism.
On February 18, 1943 the brother and sister team of Hans and Sophie Scholl took the newest leaflet to the university and scattered them in a hallway for students to find. As they were leaving they noticed they still had some more leaflets undistributed. Sophie took them to the top of the stairs and flung them into the air. A janitor witnessed this and betrayed them to the Gestapo. They were arrested along with anyone associated with them.
Four days later they were sentenced to death and beheaded. Their last tract was smuggled out of Germany and Allied planes dropped millions of copies of it on Germany during the war. As Hans Scholl went to his death he said: “Es lebe die Freiheit!” (Long live freedom.)
The students of the White Rose were executed because they didn’t believe what the all powerful government of the day demanded that they believe. Worse yet they expressed their disbelief. They published their skepticism and urged others to share their heresy.
From the janitor who betrayed them to the judge who order their deaths to the government that ran the court these people were held in utter disrepute. They are today considered monsters and rightfully so. Civilized people do not believe in executing or punishing people for their beliefs.
So what do we make of Jehovah?
Here is an alleged deity who promises that he will punish individuals for their thought crimes for the rest of eternity. The torment that the Nazis inflicted on the students of the White Rose ended with a guillotine blade. The torment we are promised by Jehovah is eternal. In that sense his torture is far worse than any inflicted by human monsters.
posted by GodlessZone at Friday, November 17, 2006
15 Comments:
Hi, GodlessZone, I wanted to tell you that the Bible does not really teach that everyone not saved is going to burn in Hell, although some churches teach that. At Romans 6:23 the Bible says "For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord."
Death without resurrection is God's punishment for those who would mess up the cleansed earth for the "meek" who are to inherit it.
Hell is a mistranslation of three other words in the Bible. Hades, Sheol and Gehenna. Search "hell" at www.watchtower.org, for more detailed information.
Thanks,
maureen123@cox.net
November 18, 2006
Maureen: It is impossible to discuss what every individual thinks the Bible says since it is so easy to come up with millions of interpretations of doctrines (hence the multiplicity of Christian sects and cults). Of course everyone thinks their own interpretation is the correct one. If I only commented on doctrines where all Christians agreed there would be nothing to talk. Now I know the Russellites don't believe in hell which is where you are trying to send readers. But thanks for mentioning the Jehovah's Witnesses as I've neglected them and some of their absurd theology and that was negligent of me. I shall rectify the matter soon.
November 18, 2006
Why would death without resurrection be a punishment anyway if all it consists of is an eternal deep sleep-like state with no dreaming or snoring? If there is no type of conciousness or awareness after death for "sinners" then they are not missing out on anything. Why would conciousness and awareness be more important even in an immortal state of being?
For godless zone: Sophie was Fred's cousin. I will pass the link to this onto him.
November 18, 2006
Consciousness and awareness after death is important for those nutters who think they will go to heaven and everybody they hate will go to hell. They hate the "non-believers" so much that they want to make sure once and for all that these people will suffer for the rest of eternity. Hence, the concept of hell. And as suffering requires consciousness, hence the consciousness. It's a truly sadistic concept.
November 19, 2006
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
November 20, 2006
Publius: I have deleted your message. I will repost it here without your sermons included. I have asked you not to use this site to preach your theology. Since you don't seem to understand what I mean I will repost your message without your sermon. That should make it clear. In the future I'll just delete it. And I have yet to see the film though I wish to do so.
Publius II said...
Easy there luggage. I don't hate anyone that I believe will find their eternal fate in hell. I feel a great amount of sorrow, as a matter of fact, for the people I know and even people I've never known that do not understand xxxx. But at the same time, I understand why there must be a just punishment for sin. xxxxx s something none of us deserve and it can't be earned by anyone. There's nothing "sadistic" about it.
NGZ: Have you seen the new movie out about the White Rose? http://www.sophieschollmovie.com/
November 20, 2006
*sigh*.. you've taken out the meaning of my post. When will you understand that talking about the facts that surround one's beliefs about anything spiritual is not always "preaching a sermon." I made an effort to keep it as straight to the point as I could, while maintaining the clarity of my thoughts. You deleted the word "Grace." Why? It's a word.. and without it, that second to last sentence doesn't make a bit of sense.
November 20, 2006
If the only "meaning" you can give a comment is to preach about how people have to get saved and that they are going to hell for being sinners, blah, blah, blah then don't post here. I technically should have cut out right up to "earned by anyone". As that was part of your Calvinist bull. There is a difference between preaching your doctrines and trying to prove them. You don't try to prove them you merely preach them. And this is not the site for that. This is a site for atheist. And while we won't "ban" Christians or try to take away their rights we do say that if you wish to use our site you do so by our rules. And our rule is that is not a fishing spot for Christians looking for converts. And, by the way, that includes listing your email address urging people to contact you so you can preach to them directly. Unless you want to pay me an advertising fee which won't be cheap.
November 20, 2006
I was responding directly the comments that luggage was making. Her comments showed a misunderstanding of hell, and I was clarifying what that concept entailed. Disagreeing with me is more than welcome, and I absolutely welcome a healthy discussion on any topic whatsoever. You on the other hand seem to want to censor anything you don't like.
What's the point of criticizing Christians on this website if no one is allowed to disagree with you about what you say or give you the reasons why we feel you are misrepresenting the facts?
November 21, 2006
Sorry, that doesn't wash. Your know your comments were general comments about the need for being born again, trusting Jesus, etc. As for misunderstand hell again your fundamenalist mind set won't let you see the problem here. Every fundamenalist thinks any theological concept that is not in tune with their own is wrong. So if I write about the Catholic view of communion you would argue that it is not the proper view, it is not the Christian view, blah, blah, blah. That limits the nature of this blog severely. I deal with religion in general and not just fundamentalism and not just your brand of fundamentalism. Many Christians disagree with you and think you are wrong. Some no doubt think you are going to hell. Debate those difference with them.
Now don't pull the bullshit about censor "anything" I don't like. Very little of what you say I like and much of it you have said here quite freely. I have defined my property rights to my blog to say what is proper for the comments section. That is property rights. Censorship is the use of force preventing you from saying what you want with your own resources or those made freely available to you by others. I have not done that. You are absolutely free to start your own blog to preach as much you want -- millions of others have done just that. I have no ability to censor you. But your right to speech does not come at my expense. You can preach your gospel as much as you want but not in my living room, so to speak. Because as the owner of the blog I can set the conditions for entry.
You have frequently argued I misrepresent the facts about Christianity but then what you really mean is that what I said doesn't agree with what you believe and thus your are the Procrustian bed by which all Christian beliefs are judged. Very humble of you. You can disagree. When you start preaching about God and why people must be saved, etc that is beyond our the rules of entry. Just as you have the right to set the conditions for entry into your home I have the right to set rules for entry into the blog.
November 21, 2006
You have frequently argued I misrepresent the facts about Christianity but then what you really mean is that what I said doesn't agree with what you believe and thus your are the Procrustian bed by which all Christian beliefs are judged. Very humble of you.
First off, I do not hold the belief that I am 100% correct in my theological beliefs nor do I claim I am the standard to which all others must adhere. When I claim that you misrepresent the facts about Christianity, I am pointing to your claims that "Christians believe such and such..." or making some derogatory remark toward Christians as a whole because some moron did something or said something stupid, WHICH by the way you seem to enjoy doing quite frequently.
As for misunderstand hell again your fundamenalist mind set won't let you see the problem here. Every fundamenalist thinks any theological concept that is not in tune with their own is wrong.
That clearly is not the case here. If you read above, Luggage79 was drawing a conclusion about the historical derivative of the idea of hell. The contradictory opinion which I gave was not my own, but instead is the accurately portrayed historical reason FOR the existence of hell as recorded in Scripture. It has nothing to do with my own opinions. It simply IS what we are told in Scripture. Do with it what you like. Yes I happen to believe what Scripture tells us (for reasons you are hesitant to allow me to explain), but I did not say "you must believe this because it is right." I simply said, in short, "this is what we are told, and I believe it."
November 21, 2006
You have frequently argued I misrepresent the facts about Christianity but then what you really mean is that what I said doesn't agree with what you believe and thus your are the Procrustian bed by which all Christian beliefs are judged. Very humble of you.
First off, I do not hold the belief that I am 100% correct in my theological beliefs nor do I claim I am the standard to which all others must adhere. When I claim that you misrepresent the facts about Christianity, I am pointing to your claims that "Christians believe such and such..." or making some derogatory remark toward Christians as a whole because some moron did something or said something stupid, WHICH by the way you seem to enjoy doing quite frequently.
As for misunderstand hell again your fundamenalist mind set won't let you see the problem here. Every fundamenalist thinks any theological concept that is not in tune with their own is wrong.
That clearly is not the case here. If you read above, Luggage79 was drawing a conclusion about the historical derivative of the idea of hell. The contradictory opinion which I gave was not my own, but instead is the accurately portrayed historical reason FOR the existence of hell as recorded in Scripture. It has nothing to do with my own opinions. It simply IS what we are told in Scripture. Do with it what you like. Yes I happen to believe what Scripture tells us (for reasons you are hesitant to allow me to explain), but I did not say "you must believe this because it is right." I simply said, in short, "this is what we are told, and I believe it."
November 21, 2006
In brief since I don't have hours to dedicate to just you. I have answered your claim regarding comments about Christians by stating clearly, so evey you should have understood it by now, that it is impossible to say all Christians believe anything and that such statements always means that good number, if not most, see it that way. You they argue that those views are wrong. Fine, but argue with the Christians not me. I won't say it again. We've covered this territory a number of times and you keep making the same statement over again. You are wasting my time when you do that.
You did not offer historical evidence for hell. You obviously don't know what the term "historical evidence" means. You preached theology. Theology is not evidence. And you can say it is what is Scripture and if we address that other Christians whine that is not how they interpret Scripture. The Bible is such a fucked up book you can get out of it almost anything you want. That Christians have no unified doctrine on such matters is the problem of Christians not atheists. Instead of trying to convince us what the Bible teaches you should convince the other Christians who think you are wrong.
November 21, 2006
When did I use the term "historical evidence?" Upon actually reading what I said, you will find that I did not.
When you stop using generalizations for the beliefs held by a few extremists as if they hold a majority view or even a relevant chunk of the majority, then I'll stop repeating myself about you not doing it. Until then, I will continue to correct your assertions that this is what Christians historically and traditionally believe. There are certainly some things which you CAN assert that Christians believe, which would include the historical doctrines of Church as passed down by St. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and others. But when you pick out some small sect of today's whackos who act out of selfish or prideful motives rather than an obedience to Christ, and then you claim that this is what Christians believe is right, I simply will not stand by silent.
November 21, 2006
Now you are just playing semantics and badly. Sorry, I said "historical evidence" instead of the precise term you used which was "historical reason". I don't see much difference between them. My dictionary says evidence is "ground for belief" and it defines reason as "a basis or cause, as for some belief". What is the difference? None and you are just trying to stir up shit by pretending there is.
I have never said "all Christians believe in" anything. To describe as a Christian view something is merely to describe as the general view. And you can whine and bitch and cry all you want. And that you think there are "historical doctrines of church passed down" blah, blah, blah shows exactly how ignorant of Christian history you are. There was centuries of debate and the winning side usually won by killing off the losing side. That is a fact but you don't know it.
And you can say, "I simply will not stand silent" all you want. That choice does not belong to you if you intend to use my blog, then it belongs to me. It's called property rights. I have outlined dozens of times to you (and you seem to be the only person having trouble understanding it) what are the rules of conduct for the comments section. If you do not wish to follow them that is your privilege just as it is my privilege to remove them entirely. So take your choice. And since you have wasted at least a full hour of time today alone with your numerous messages don't bother replying to this or posting for the next 24 hours please. I don't have time to deal with it and I will simply remove it. You have used up enough of my tme today.
November 21, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home