Today's wt study article quotes a Nazi mass murderer as a reference (page 3)

Justitia Themis

Ad hominem arguments can be appropriate, in response to a person being cited as an authority rather than for his argumentation.

Perhaps, but in this case it is not appropriate.

I think knowing the background is important. First, if it had no bearing on his scholarship, why not be candid and say, "a noted scholar, who was convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg, stated..... The cupidity of "one scholar" bothers me. Also, certainly this field has gained momentum since this date. I don't care if the man smoked. A major Nazi convicted at Nuremberg indicates they do not live on the same planet as everyone else. (perhaps in South America). With all the academic databases, they could not find someone without such baggage.

I've read that some of the doctors who did the torture at the concentration camps had impeccable science backgrounds. Indeed, Mengele or someone's work is very troublesome for geneticists. Some of the work is valid. The data collected is superb. Most scientists refuse to use it.

It is hard for me to read about "commercial Jews" and see this statement. There is NO sensitivity. This man murdered innocents. A competent court determined his guilt. I wonder if the additional bolstering by quoting him was even necessary for the article. If not paramount, why bother.

I don't think outing a Nuremberg convict is a personal attack. Truth is an absolute defense to defamatory statement. I am certain Hitler made cogent statements on occasion. People tend not to quote Hitler.

This reminds me of Selma and Steve. The WT could have made its point without implying that a woman who is angry about beatings is wrong. There was no need to relate the story. Other translations changed the story. Most writers would not touch this "scholar" with a ten foot pole. The WT evidently embraces him.

Others are entitled to their opinions. If you must quote a convicted Nuremberg war criminal, your morals are wrong, IMO. If his statement is so central, and how could it be since he is not a JW scholar, why not add a footnote stating you are quoting his impeccable scholarship but not condoning his gross criminality.

wha happened?

Blondie said it right when it comes to WT quotes. They will strain out the 99% to quote the 1% that agrees with their teachings. However, even when I feel somone of ill repute makes a decent point, I choose not to quote. After all, why get aligned with someone who's other ideals are inhuman.

Band on the Run

Very personal attacks are frequent on this forum. The Nuremberg trials were about whose conduct is so beyond the pale of all civilization that following orders is no excuse. Granted, Eisenhower, Truman, and Roosevelt would have been convicted, without due process, is the Nazis won. I am naive to believe that Nuremberg was not a show, kangaroo trial. If his scholarship was to be free of the fray of politics, he never should have willingly and enthusiastically joined the Nazis. His work validated the Nazi machine. His conduct was utterly shocking. Society has a right to link his Nazi conduct to his work. It was his very status as a scholar that was related to this Nazi conduct. He just did not hand out flyers.

sizemik

It just seems to me that j-ho and the holy spirit should be able to find quote-worthy sources who were NOT Nazis. I mean, they're the ones directing the writing of this stuff, right?

Supporting "fringe" beliefs often calls for quoting "fringe" authorities. WTS often refrains from naming the source in the narrative for this reason. When citations are made the quote is frequently out of context . . . the list is long (and on-line). They fell in love with Fred Hoyle because of his "steady state" universe theory, which sat comfortably with their theology, a theory now as doubtful as the paradise earth. They are happy to list scientific qualifications to some sources, but neglect to point out they are "creation scientists" who's views are dismissed by 98% of scientists . . . and have been booted out of most of the Universities they attended.

outsmartthesystem

I agree with Blondie and Wha. Just because someone of ill repute makes a logical or decent point doesn't mean you should quote them. If you were writing an article on a specific matter and Hitler, or Charles Manson or John Wayne Gacy happened to make a point that agreed with your article.....would you quote them? Most of us wouldn't. Not because that particular quote is wrong.....but because we choose to have higher standards than to rely on a quote for support of our argument from such low-life filth

Pistoff

But I still think that the fact that Kittel was a murderer and a nazi does not, on its own, detract from the fact that he could be right in the interpretation of one particular word from the Bible.

If the WT agrees with dgp, they should state that he was a murdering Nazi and also dgp's disclaimer, that just because he was a committed Nazi doesn't mean we can't trust his opinion on the bible, written by jews.

And also he had a good singing voice.

blindnomore

'because we choose to have higherstandards than relyon on a quote for support of our argument from such low-life filth.'

WTS doesn't have standard. They would quote from Hitler himself if it benefits them: According to 'One modern politician,....'

'just because he was a committed Nazi doesn't mean we can't trust his opinion on the bible, wirtten by jews.'

Hitler had his opinion on the bible too. No, I won't trust Hitler nor Nazi supporter nor the GB's opinions on the bible.

'And also he(kittel) had a good singing voice.'

So was the elder who abused child.

Hitler was known as a 'gentle men who spoke softly' among women.

Pistoff

"And he had a good singing voice"

The Producers reference? No? Nobody with me?

Band on the Run

The Producers reference is so funny. What was the big hit, "Springtime with Hitler?"

I was shocked that some people I respect think there is no moral challenge quoting a Nazi theologian. Of course, I am relying on the wikipedia article which might be extraordinary well written and astute or a joke. His Nuremberg liability was precisely tied to his work as a theologian. HIs scholarly reputation was deliberately used to bolster his evil antisemitic theology. The link is crucial to me. His academic work became permeated with Nazi ideology. Nuremberg went after the movers and the shakers, not individual soldiers.

Mengele's medicine was flawless in many ways. The data he collected on twins and genetics is remarkable. No scientist can come close to his results b/c of the vast amount of data and the unspeakable acts done to collect the data. It is a treasure trove. No scientist feels comfortable using his data. His data can be separated from the Holocaust in a certain fashion. Scientists are very tempted to know the knowledge yet they don't go near his data.

Perhaps my age is showing. I can picture Spencer Tracy in Judgment at Nuremberg. Before I get too stirred up, let me remind myself that the CIA helped useful Nazis settle in the United States or South America. Scientists were favored. I don't see that this man taught at Union Theological or Harvard Divnity after the war. My model for a Christian theologian is Dietrich Bonhoffer who left Union to return to Germany to conspire to kill Germany. Despite being a leading theologian, very welcome in the West, Bonhoeffer's family was tied to the German aristocracy and military. He felt he a special responsibility b/c of his family connections. He would not be viewed as a tool of the Allieds but a German much more German than HItler. He was executed when the plot failed.

We aren't fragments of ourselves. The gestalt is important. To use academic gifts in the service of the Holocaust is unconsciable in my view. This past year I read Constantine's Sword about rampant church antisemitism in Europe. Innocent scholar not deserving of personal attack is a total lie, IMO, and if wikipedia is accurate.

Today's wt study article quotes a Nazi mass murderer as a reference

Share this