Adolf Hitler: Natural Philosophy Vs. Hinduism
Adolf Hitler was born April 20th, 1889 in the Austrian town of Braunau am Inn and would be responsible for one of humanity’s worst genocides. As Fuhrer, or ruler, of Germany from 1933 until his death in 1945, Adolf Hitler employed a plan to eliminate every Jew in Europe and eventually control the world. When Hitler’s reign of terror finally came to an end upon his suicide in Berlin on April 30th, 1945, he had directly caused the death of over 11 million people and played a vital role in the deaths of over 50 million people. Both natural theology and Hinduism provide different accounts of Hitler going beyond the way in which he lived. Natural theology would lead one to believe that Hitler suffered from an imbalance in body and soul, which
…show more content…
By understanding our existence to be the work of an all-powerful God and not a direct extension of said God, as well as by not developing the principle of reincarnation, I find the natural theologian’s perspective regarding the human soul less inadequate than the Hindu perspective. Natural theology provides a definite description of God as being existence itself, and spirit as having no parts, not spatially-bound, and incapable of losing existence. Soul and spirit, while not the equivalent, are inexorably linked. A soul is the life principle of a living thing, and it is understood by natural theology that a human soul is a form of spirit. As existence itself, only God can be the origin to our perfect soul, which is trapped in and in constant conflict with a physical body of imperfection. While it is said our spirit can live without a body, and therefore we need not fear the death of our physical form, our body cannot live without a soul. What we must fear are the ones who can corrupt and destroy our souls, which would result in our descent into Hell. Although I am not explicitly a natural theologian myself, I believe the natural theological perspective on the human soul is less inadequate than that of the Hindu perspective, primarily because our existence is understood to come from God, yet remains separate from both him and our earthly
By understanding our existence to be the work of an all-powerful God and not a direct extension of said God, as well as by not developing the principle of reincarnation, I find the natural theologian’s perspective regarding the human soul less inadequate than the Hindu perspective. Natural theology provides a definite description of God as being existence itself, and spirit as having no parts, not spatially-bound, and incapable of losing existence. Soul and spirit, while not the equivalent, are inexorably linked. A soul is the life principle of a living thing, and it is understood by natural theology that a human soul is a form of spirit. As existence itself, only God can be the origin to our perfect soul, which is trapped in and in constant conflict with a physical body of imperfection. While it is said our spirit can live without a body, and therefore we need not fear the death of our physical form, our body cannot live without a soul. What we must fear are the ones who can corrupt and destroy our souls, which would result in our descent into Hell. Although I am not explicitly a natural theologian myself, I believe the natural theological perspective on the human soul is less inadequate than that of the Hindu perspective, primarily because our existence is understood to come from God, yet remains separate from both him and our earthly