It has been alleged in several forum threads that Hitler was a Christian.
This then, is used as an argument to intimate that his actions in the Wars, and the Holocaust were as a direct result of his Christian faith.
The next inference then seems to be, that Christianity (Christians) do murderous things, like genocide, etc.
This is, in the very least, an erroneous accusation.
I don't understand how anyone can have this assertion.
Anyone care to comment on this?
Those who make the assertion do so merely to instigate trouble and mock Christians.
I don't think anyone thinks Hitler did anything because he was a Christian. I think it's thrown up to combat the argument that Christians can't do bad things. It's in response to the no "real" Christian would do something bad stance.
Christians do bad things all the time, not because they are Christian (most of the time) but because they are human. Being Christian doesn't make one Christ. Doing something bad doesn't make a Christian not a Christian either.
Acting unChristlike doesn't get you kicked out of the club... or no one would be in it.
That's pretty much the way i understand it too.
Is it that some just DON'T get it?
Or, are they being deliberately, wilfully, antagonistic about it?
No more willful than those who suggest that if someone does something bad then they aren't a Christian.
Hitler likely was a Christian. I don't think Christ drove him to do anything he did. But he did pray frequently and read his Bible, and attend Church. So it is likely that he believed that everything he did was according to his faith. I wouldn't have got the same message, but he likely was faithful. It's the faith that defines, not the actions. He had, it seems, real faith.
HItler's hatred of Christianity is well-documented. His desire to sideline Christianity, remove the Jewish elements from the life of Jesus, and eventually destroy all Christian churches is well documented (the book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich documented his laws he signed to start demolishing Christian churches, which was halted only by the loss of the war, and the NY Times has blogged about Hitlers 'bibles.'
His privately stated beliefs tend more towards paganism. Blood and soil were his primary objects of awe and mysticism.
I have dealt with people who think that Hitler's actions were a direct result of his 'christianity.'
I've also dealt with people who think that it makes no difference what he did, he was baptized and therefor he was a Christian and all Christians are the same.
I don't think I've dealt with too many who make the argument you put say they are, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. They may even be the majority, just not a vocal one.
Probably for the same reason that Christians like to say that Hitler was an atheist to try and prove that atheists do bad things. It carries about as much weight as saying that Hitlers mustache made him do bad things and everyone with a mustache is evil.
In hitlersv writing and speeches, he claimed to be doing things for god, and blamed Jews for crucifying Christ. Saying he was not a true Christian is just the no true scotsman fallacy so that believers can distance themselves from his actions.
The bottom line is that people do bad things, regardless of what they claim to believe or not believe.
Charlie Chaplin had a square mustache. Anti Antisemitism was rampant in both Europe and here in the US before and especially after WW1.
The wicked little man.
Actually, so did my grandfather. He was a wicked little man too! (Not).
This is true. In fact, our government knew about the concentration camps but chose not to act on that knowledge, which is why the stories of soldiers who liberated the camps being so shocked and surprised by what they saw are the norm.
I have stated this very same thing, several times in the past. However, certain people seem to refuse to do the same.
I suppose it brings a point of agreement that is undesirable (to these same ones) in a discussion.
God forbid that a believer and an atheist should agree on anything.
Hitler was a Christian. Germany was a heavily Christian nation at the time. Most Germans were practicing Christians. Hitler felt he was doing god's work by punishing the Jews for killing Jesus. He had the support (with a few exceptions who were murdered for opposing him) of both the Catholic and Protestant churches.
So - the holocaust was perpetrated by people claiming to be Christians. Draw what inferences you will, but claiming that Christians are more moral than atheists and atheism lead to genocide is nonsense. That is what started the discussion. A Christian claiming that atheists will commit genocide because they have no morals.
But - of course you prefer to not notice it was a Christian attacking atheists that began the discussion in the first place. Hitler being a Christian was a counter to that claim. Why do you ignore that fact? Because you are a bigot and hate atheism. ThIS tends to be a common theme amongst many Christians. As you have just so aptly demonstrated.
Why do you hate atheism exactly?
For the same reason as I do, religion.
They both separate man from God, by spreading their perverted doctrines.
Quite simple, really!
But there is no such thing as god. As a matter of interest - exactly what doctrines are spread by not believing in Majikal Invisible Super Beings?
Your own words, Mark. "But there is no such thing as god. As a matter of interest - exactly what doctrines are spread by not believing in Majikal Invisible Super Beings?"
Why ask a question, and answer it in the same breath? I thought you were English?
Oh - not believing in something is a "doctrine" now? sorry - I forgot you were not English and probably think it means something else. Allow me to educate you as you are clearly incapable of understanding plain English. Sorry about that:
Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system.
Atheism is a lack of belief in Invisible Super Beings.
Hope that helps.
Well, my English is a bit rusty, but here goes.
Changing the wording, changes the meaning.
Your position cannot be both.
Either you state your doctrine "There is no such thing as god".
or, your philosophical position of, "I believe there is no God".
They are clearly NOT the same thing.
Just a bit of extra reading for you. (Just in case you want to).
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre … sm-defined
http://empirestrikesblack.com/2013/04/o … -religion/
Let me rephrase that to be clear. As far as I can tell, there doesn't appear to be any such thing as god and I don't believe your claim that there is one. My philosophical position is that there is no evidence of god and I don't believe you when you claim that there is one.
That is the extend of my lack of belief. So - this is clearly not a "doctrine."
Interesting - Hitler hated religion as you do. He must have been the same type of Christian that you are.
As to whether or not there is a god - you define it and I will disprove it. Thus the statement that "there is no god," is more addressing your inability to properly define it. Until you define it, the word "god," is essentially meaningless and I feel comfortable saying that it doesn't exist because of that. All we have as a definition is your various hatreds and self righteousness. Please go ahead and define it for me.
you are very good at rephrasing. Keeps you argument slippery. GOOD strategy!Thank you for your faith statement. I always knew this about you, but I'm glad you finally own it. Well done.Clearly, you have not read one of my links. One of your own (atheist) condemns you for this type of argument. I'm sure you are well pleased with your "breaking ranks" performance.
pleas take a few moments to read it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre … sm-defined
He needs no defining! Look at Jesus. Enough said.
He needs no defining? Then He doesn't exist. Thanks for proving my point.
Sorry you don't understand. Is that the real reason you hate atheists? If it cannot be defined, it cannot exist.
Really? You act like you do. Where I come from, actions speak louder than words.
I NEVER claimed to be Righteous like you, so, I guess I fail.
So, what actions do you see?
All I have supplied are WORDS. This is a text based forum, is it not.
Oh, did I show hatred of atheists by laughing at your post?
I thought it hilarious myself.
I see the way you are behaving. You say you don't hate, but your words and actions of posting them contradict that. You are acting as though you hate atheists by coming here and fighting and laughing at them. So - I don't believe you when you claim not to hate them and their perverted doctrines.
I heard on the news the other day that there are some Muslims who assert that Einstein was a Muslim that got the idea of relativity from reading the Quran.
That propaganda is much the same as claiming Hitler was not a Christian when he asserted he was and was attempting to avenge the killing of Jesus by the Jews which was a commonly held belief at that time in parts of Europe.
Hilter was a follower of Aleister Crowley, who was one of the most renowned Satanist, who referred to himself as the Great Beast. He wrote his book The Book of Law, which Hitler read and kept. Hitler was heavy into the occult. So, were Hitler's SS and Gestopo. Hilter also murdered Christians. Hitler was not Christian, but actually anti-Christian or anti-Christ.
As with scriptures, atheists here take Hitler's self declaration of being a Christian out of context.
His actions couldn't be even remotely considered Christ-like. Perhaps his actions were more in keeping with that of the Roman Catholic church throughout history, but CERTAINLY NOT in keeping with Christ's commandments to (His) church.
Even if he, in some twisted way, thought he was avenging the killing of Jesus, by the Jews, he has absolutely no scriptural basis to work from.
Thanks for your comment.
That Hitler did not agree with your concept of what a Christian is, or how Christ behaved, does not mean he was not Christian. It is just as likely that YOU are not Christian, particularly with the bias against Catholicism.
What defines a (true) Christian?
If Hitler was, and I'm not, what's the difference between us, (him and me)?
Apparently, whoever is the current speaker defines what a true Christian is. At least, everyone seems to know, but no two agree.
Hitler said he was, and as he was the speaker at the time, he must have been a true Christian. You insinuate you are much different, so you must not be even though you also insinuate you ARE.
Such confusion, and all to make it "obvious" one person is better than another.
I don't know if there is any important difference between a Christian and a "true" Christian, save the latter likes to dictate what the former should do in order to qualify.
According to the records, Hitler was a Christian. Not only was he Christian - he actually cited Jesus words "when he called the Pharisees children of the devil" to justify his acts against Jews.
Perhaps even more concerning than Hitler being a Christian is the strong support he received from the Church.
Hitler was a product of his environment. He leaned strongly on Martin Luther's beliefs. Martin Luther - the father of the Lutheran Church - remember him? Luther was extremely antisemitic and the Lutheran Church didn't denounce Luther until the 1980s.
I don't know why anyone is surprised that Hitler was Christian. Who do you think ran the Inquisition? It's long been a tenet of the Church to punish/torture/kill those who did not believe as the Church believed.
Sometimes, I hear people say that if Christianity were not true - it would not have spread throughout the world. What they're forgetting is that it spread at the point of a sword. Convert or die.
That said - Christianity IS much better today - in the Western world at any rate. Most of the Old Testament is fading into obscurity and only the message of compassion and forgiveness is cited by most of today's Christians.
Dj. Hitler may have believed himself to be Christian, but it was perverted theories of race supremacy which drove his actions. I'm afraid faulty conclusions which arose from Darwin's theories caused quite a few worldwide to commit crimes against humanity.
So the OT contains no reference to superior races?
I'm not going to stoop to debate that since, whether it does, or doesn't isn't the point; although I'm not sure there is anything in there that specifically uses the term 'superior races'.
Really, The Israelites claiming that are descendants of Gods and Gods chosen people doesn't strike any chords with you?
I don't remember stories of Israelites comparing skull structure and claiming that proved some races were sub species. You do understand the difference between someone using religion to claim that God loves them more and some using science to claim one race has dirty blood and one is pure? Man, I hope so.
Interesting that you seem to think it's okay for a religious groups to claim superiority? They claim that God made them separate from the others and are fallen God's as they (Adam and Eve) were meant to live forever. The Israelites despised the Samaritans and thought them inferior because they were basically half-breeds.
"6 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
LOL. What does the first paragraph have to do with the other? Seriously, you are running off on tangents here.
Let's see if I understand you correctly. Is it your contention that Darwin's theories were not initially used as a springboard for attempts at genocide and racism?
Is it your contention that before Darwin's theories the was no genocides or racism?
Did I say that, or otherwise imply that? We are talking about Hitler; not other historical events. We were discussing Hitler and you attempted to deflect into a Bibilical discussion.
Does the fact that Hitler used Darwin's research to justify genocide bother you so much that you can't explore it?
I saw your post earlier, but didn't have time to respond.
Scientific racism is the most likely candidate for being responsible for the Holocaust. And, I think there is ample reason to believe that Darwin worked himself away from the idea that some races were better than others; but, he did make some pretty damning statements on the subject, from time to time.
Let's take this statement made by Darwin: The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Or, this one. “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts?and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal ‘struggle for existence,’ it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed?and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.“
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Darwin is, in any way, responsible for the damage done by scientific racism however, I do consider him to be the father of it. I think people take their own biases and attempt to create science to back them up, or they read the wrong conclusions into scientific findings and those who want to see themselves as 'superior' then have a way to justify those attitudes in their mind. You take solid science to springboard into shaky science; and more than one entire race of people are almost exterminated before anyone realizes how insane the whole endeavor was. Or, you sterilize those who don't meet the standards of a 'superior race'.
Hitler didn't target only the Jews; although they suffered more than any other group. He killed the Romani, the poles, Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, homosexuals, Jehovah Witnesses and I just saw a movie based on true events where they even targeted kids who liked swing music.
I don't know. You can't blame all of that on religion; as some attempt to do; because religion in the Western world ceased to be a binding force several hundred years after the Reformation.
Darwin and his theories had absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about, it was a guy by the name of Spencer who coined the phrase "Social Darwinism", which is what you're referring.
Many people even not Christians will change into a monster after having this authority and power over other people. So I think Hitler was.
Hitler's ideology owed a lot to the notion of social darwinism. He believed that the history of the world consisted of a struggle between the different races, and that the aryans ("master race") were superior to all others.
While it might be reasonable to suggest that the notion of social darwinism (among other influences) was warped and distorted by Hitler's own maladjusted psychology, leading to the horrific, and perverted idea of the "final solution"; I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that darwinism is responsible for Hitler's ideology and the holocaust. Ditto religion.
I think it's reasonable to suggest both were. Any idea that leads to one human being being superior to another human being for any reason, in any area, should at least come with the disclaimer that it doesn't give anyone the right to be an ass about it.
Any revelations, spiritual or otherwise, can lead to people acting on them. It is the responsibility of the revealing party/organization/religion/philosophy to own up to that and act to prevent it.
I see it quite differently. I think we blame it on Christianity, or atheism, or Darwinism, or eugenics etc. as a way of rationalising it. This rationalisation is more palatable than the alternative: that Hitler did what he did because he was a human being, and we human beings have a biological imperative to distinguish our own social group from 'others', then eradicate the others. I think that's a frightening prospect for us collectively because it highlights an underlying truth which is difficult to accept: with all our advancements, we are still struggling to overcome our biological nature. That suggests we (as a species) lack the ability to determine our own behaviour. This lack of self-determinism conflicts with the notion of self that is so pivotal to the human psyche. The idea that Hitler happened because of a combination of political power and human biological programming run amok, is truly terrifying. But it's precisely because it's so terrifying that I think we must face up to it. Hitler isn't the only example. Others (religious and not) in similar positions of political power have done the same. So I don't believe Hitler's behaviour was caused by Christianity, or atheism, or Darwinism etc. I think the holocaust is what happens when animals with the biological imperatives we have, develop to a level of complexity that gives them the ability to kill each other on an industrial scale. In rationalising that behaviour, I think we do ourselves a disservice in the long run. Because to address such behaviour, we have to first acknowledge what it is. All the while we blame such behaviour on ideas, we'll waste time trying to change people's minds, instead of doing what we need to do which, in my opinion, is to overcome human nature.
German children were generally reviled by their elders around the turn of the 20th century. Kids were commonly dubbed evil “bowel movements” (just as different races were). Mothers would often keep their babies tightly swaddled all day so they wouldn’t have to deal with them. It was common to see tightly swaddled, living infants, soaked with piss and excrement hanging from trees while their mothers were off in the garden working. Children were constantly beaten, kicked, burned, molested and killed. Most Germans around this time could recall losing their brothers and sisters to infanticide by the hands of their own parents. And it wasn’t even considered a crime. Murdered children frequently turned up in gutters and trash heaps.
Hitler did not act alone and he did not cast a spell on his followers. They were all products of this brutal time in history, deeply disturbed and frightened people who saw sub-human, non-Christian enemies everywhere.
Hitler had long since abandoned his Catholic faith for a Germano-Centric, occult laden, paganistic, civil religion. All the trappings of a religion but invented from the bogus Aryan mythos woven together from Tuetonic and Norse mythologies; Tacitus's veiled critique of declining Roman virtues - Germania; the cultural/political necessity of creating a unique German character; and steeped in a "natural" superiority to all the other more decadent people of the world, especially the Jews. No different than Lenin and Stalin's new "Soviet Man" or Castro's perfect Cuba - all create their mythologies to replace the religious faith they abandon for material power.
I dunno. Hitler and the Church were pretty tight.
Catholic Martyrs of the Holocaust.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl … ch0229.htm
That was an interesting link. I admit I didn't read it all as I'm short on time.
Here is why I love it. It starts by saying.
"It is true that many Catholics turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, and others remained silent out of fear for their lives and the safety of their families. There were certainly many ex-Catholic members of the ruling Nazi circles, just as there were Catholics in some numbers who supported the Nazis out of a twisted sense of nationalism, anti-Semitic beliefs, or for pure personal advancement in a corrupt and evil state."
Then we have the BUT.
"But what many people don't know is that the Church itself was a target of the Nazis."
While it is true that Hitler had his plans for the Catholic church lets not attempt to make Martyrs out of those who turned a blind eye to the killings of more than 6 million people. Poor us, look how much we suffered while aligning ourselves with with Nazi party.
A freely offered opinion from ignorance is certainly worth the price.
Don't let the slightest effort wipe the ignorance away. It would be a shame if you opened you eyes.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ … recnum=472
How about a little quote:
"The Catholic Church in Poland was especially hard hit by the Nazis. In 1939, 80 percent of the Catholic clergy and five of the bishops of the Warthegau region had been deported to concentration camps. In Wroclaw, 49.2 percent of the clergy were dead; in Chelmno, 47.8 percent; in Lodz, 36.8 percent; in Poznan, 31.1. In the Warsaw diocese, 212 priests were killed; 92 were murdered in Wilno, 81 in Lwow, 30 in Cracow, thirteen in Kielce. Seminarians who were not killed were shipped off to Germany as forced labor."
Jews weren't the sole victims of Nazi hate.
OR try this one:
and a quote:
"Of the 11 million people killed during the Holocaust, six million were Polish citizens. Three million were Polish Jews and another three million were Polish Catholics."
Willful ignorance is a self imposed blindness, stop being blind.
You seemed to have missed the point. The point is the "BUT". Sure the Catholic church turned a blind eye to the killing of Jews…but…
Who would put a but in there besides Catholics attempting to make martyrs as we know who much some Catholics love martyrs.
It is not the Church that turned a blind eye, it was, as it always has been and always will be, individuals. You seem to think that the whole of the Catholic Church is made up of little cogs who turn in the direction commanded. I did not miss the BUTT.
Okay as long as you didn't miss the But, you must have erred in your spelling there pale.
You are aware that the Catholic Church is led by one right? He is thought to be infallible in these matters. I do like the new one. He has recently done something remarkable in the naming of his Anti-Abuse Group. I hope this one stays safely in his Popemobile.
Perhaps you should limit your comments to the universe of your understanding. Papal infallibility is a very specific thing that you have completely wrong, a position with which you are obviously comfortable. Once you come to understand the positions of Pope Francis, it is likely you will hate him, too.
Perhaps, but God knows I'll hate him less than the last few. Did you read who he appointed to his Anti-Abuse Group? You got a love 'em for that alone, or hate him less as you put it. I try not to hate, you may want to adopt the same trait.
It is likely that you will learn to like Francis as much as you liked Benedict and John Paul, considering his positions on moral issues are exactly the same. Francis is unlikely to turn the Church in a direction lefties will appreciate.
Ha ha ha. I don't care if they are left or right. I just don't want innocent children to be abused.
So you oppose homosexuals as Boy Scout Leaders? Remember the position you have staked out here, when Francis disappoints the left by opposing abortion, homosexual marriage, women priests, etc...I wonder what tune you will sing.
Well, the tune I'll be singing is that I'd rather him oppose all those things and try to stop children from being molested than him oppose all those things and not try to stop children from being molested.
I'm painfully aware of what Francis says about these topics and how he says them as long as he protects innocent children. Homosexuals and women are free to leave the church and I hope they do, but children don't have that option. See the difference?
"all create their mythologies to replace the religious faith they abandon for material power"
The Roman emperor that "took up" Christianity by clarifying dogma and canons with the "creed of Nicaea". The start of Christianity and church, in other words.
Do you believe that the Council of Nicea served Constantine, your right of course, or God, the right of others to believe. Given the great men in attendance, I would venture to say few there would place the former ahead of the latter. The statement of faith emerging from Nicea was the work of many men, not just one.
That is correct. The attendees at the council were great - in the affairs of man. The politicians and bishops of today, that lived in the third century. And those many men came together and decided what the canons of the church would be, and what the scriptures would say - their basic decisions have survived until today, with a few changes. They basically began the Christian religion, giving it form and substance, under the guidance and demands of Constantine.
True - it does not delve into the Gnostic "problem", which was solved by hunting down the gnostics that believed in Christ but not in the church, and killing them. It doesn't go into the methodology of choosing books of the bible, where Constantine is said to have thrown them all onto the table; the ones that stayed were kept, those that fell onto the floor were discarded. Kind of hard to put all the history into a short paragraph, isn't it?
Like al qaeida has nothing to do with islam, neither does hitler. Extremism is called retardedness. coming from a muslim with 90 percent friends that are christians and that knows what he talking about (I like to think)
Good for you. Don't stop. This post has my respect, not that that means a whole bunch. Muslims have been criticized for not standing up against extremists, while Christians simply deny that extremists are Christians.
Some Christians don't. There were several Christian groups that stood against WBC. It's like fighting the tide though, Christianity-like politics-is becoming more polarized. In our case, the fundamentalists are winning because they get the most press. The faith is imploding and I fear it will eventually wipe itself out. Which is a shame, because the true message of Christ had such potential to be a positive thing... until Christians got a hold of it.
History shows that the more extreme a philosophy is, the more limited it's life span. Extremism rears up, makes a big noise, causes havoc, then dies. I believe that's what we are watching now.
I do not think Hitler actions had nothing to do with religion. But Christians have, indeed, done "murderous things, like genocide" in the name of god ... Crusades, massacre of thousands natives in the New World, African slavery, and so on.
It does not means all christian are violent, criminals or murderers, btw.
One thing I've learned in my life is that a cause on an event, whether direct or indirect, is still a cause for an event. The difference is in in who or what is truly responsible for the event. If one man kills another man because of a dispute over a woman, then the woman is the indirect cause but the man is responsible for his actions. Now if the woman tells the man to kill another man then she can be the direct cause and bears as much responsibility as the man who obeyed. Same difference as with religion. religion has been an indirect cause (at the very least) of people doing bad things because of individual interpretation of whatever religion is being followed based on indoctrination and/or understanding as well as a possible direct cause (If the person was in fact hearing from a God, which in itself cannot be tested). As I've often heard before, Christianity is supposed to be considered a personal relationship with God and Christ. Therefore, based on what written reports have shown, Hitler could be considered a Christian. Since he is dead (and the only one around at the time of his death considering he killed his mistress and dog prior to killing himself) we can't know what his personal relationship was at that (or any) time.
To say that he was not a true Christian is not only a fallacy, but it is also a head in the sand approach used by a lot of Christians in an effort to not be associated with someone who may have the same belief but still did something bad. This is one big issue a lot of people have with Christianity. Instead of acknowledging that Christians can do (and have done) bad things and trying to get to the root of the bad thing to facilitate change within the religion, they instead choose to push them out and claim that they are not a true Christian. Which in and of itself goes against certain teachings in the bible as to how to treat others in general and fellow believers that may have gone astray in particular. This adds fuel to the fire as to why religion in general (and Christianity in particular) is not taken seriously. In what's supposed to be an all inclusive personal faith and religion, organized social clubs act exclusively to kick out anyone who does not agree with them.
Hitler had been brought up a Catholic and was impressed by the organization and power of the Church. For Protestant clergy he felt only contempt: 'They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs...[-] They have neither a religion you can take seriously nor a great position to defend like Rome'. It was the 'great position' of the Church that he respected; towards its teaching he showed only the sharpest hostility. In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.
— Excerpt from Hitler a Study in Tyranny by Alan Bullock
So - simply a matter of interpretation. Hitler was Christian and detested the wishy washy version. He saw Jesus as a warrior. Christian fundamentalist really. Like you I suppose?
Your argument breaks down, so you resort to personal, bigoted attacks.
I thought you don't like people doing that sort of stuff!
HMMM, I must have read many of your posts incorrectly.
Attack? I have made no such thing. Please stop lying about me - your Super Daddy will burn you for that. Odd - you sure you believe all that guff you spout?
It's now past 1am where I live.
Time for some ssslllleeeeeepp! Night all.
I suppose we could simply make it easy and say that whatever someone professes to be....they are. And, their professed cosmic stand is what causes them to act in the manner they do.
Hitler was a Christian. Stalin, Mao, Po Pot and Kim Jong-Il were atheists. They all did a lot of damage to humanity so I don't think anyone wants to claim any of them.
I haven't read all the posts, maybe the later ones disagree, but the early ones seem to all agree that Hitler was a Christian. Let me be clear, Hitler was NOT a Christian. He did NOT like Christianity. This is well documented. He WAS a liar, which is also well documented. I've studied this quite a bit, I find Nazi Germany, Nazi ideology and Hitler specifically fascinating subjects. The assertion that saying he was not a Christian is just a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy is not the result of actual knowledge of history. He tried to supplant Christianity with Naziism from before the war, when he insisted that the swastika be alongside the cross in churches and later the cross removed. Whatever he may have done in his earlier days, by the time WW II started in earnest he was no Christian and by the end of the war he was ready to literally demolish all churches.
I see you are another one who is clueless about the difference between a Christian, and a Christian.
I will leave you to figure out the puzzle for yourself.
Yes - it is confusing. So many of you claim to be Christ like and then act the opposite. No doubt this is why your religion has caused so many genocides.
I may regret this...
It's true that Christianity has a bloody history, but genocides? How many actual attempts to exterminate an entire ethnic group have there been? And how does this compare to genocides caused for other reasons?
And don't even try to say Nazi genocides were motivated by Christianity. At least not unless you can produce something more trustworthy than Q did.
Do some research before making such statements.
Stand by it.
Thanks for proving my point for me. Always love when that happens.
Aww - sorry. Making stuff up and repeating it does not prove your point. But thanks for reminding me why Christians cause so much ill will and hatred. Like Hitler did
Well done you. Yay!
I disagree. When other people make stuff up, it proves my point quite nicely. But don't feel bad, you're not the first. It happens all the time.
Hitler WAS a Christian. He DID like Christianity. He just INTERPRETED it differently to you. God Spoke to him into his head the same as happens to you. Literally demolish huh? Who knows which of you are the REAL Christians? You all say everyone else is not a real one. Must be the smallest religion in history I suppose.
Nice try. But to even attempt to apply the No True Scotsman fallacy here is to say, "As far as I'm concerned, if some says they're a Christian then they're a Christian and there's no difference between Paul, Francis and Hitler."
And there is. Hitler did not like Christianity. He quoted it, sure. He also said openly that the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it. Nazi theology, what there is of it, tended toward paganism. Hitler believed in reincarnation. He started a program to resurrect the 'pre-Christian Aryan Knighthood' (saw that one on a PBS documentary.) He signed legal documents to start destroying churches. He tried to supplant Christianity with Nazism within the church from the 1930's (this is well documented in the NY Times, and in the the book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.) Anything along the lines of "Who knows which of you are the REAL Christians?" is basically another way of saying, "You're all basically the same." Which ironically is a statement Hitler would have been quite comfortable with.
As far as I'm concerned there's no difference between Paul, Francis and Hitler... as far as their chosen religion. As far as the negative/positive effects of their actions, there is a huge difference. The faith is the same, their interpretation of the faith is different. Such things happen.
Yes, as far as the umbrella faith chosen, we all are the same. As far as what we get from our faith, EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN IS DIFFERENT. That doesn't mean that they aren't Christian, it just means they have their own individual take on it.
Chris, you can't be this blind. I love you, but seriously? You can't have it both ways. You can either say that every Christian believes exactly the same way, so there really is a "True" Christian... or you can admit that every Christian gets something different than the next... in which there is no "True Christian".
If you believe option one, then everybody gets to LEGITIMATELY stereotype all Christians together according to what YOU do, and you will be forced to agree with it. After all, you will be exactly every other Christian, therefore anything YOU do applies to all of Christianity. If you choose option two, then stereotypes are completely unfair... even the ones you have against members of your own faith. (Both good and bad).
You are seriously choosing the first option?
Hitler is an entirely different subject and anyone who states that a man who's hatred of Christianity is so well known was nonetheless a Christian is the one whose eyesight needs checking.
Relativism in this case is an excuse for evil, plain and simple. I don't make that as a blanket statement but if you can't draw the line at Hitler, you can't draw the line anywhere and we truly live in an anything goes world.
I love you too Melissa (don't tell hubby, though, he might not understand ) but I've studied Hitler and Nazism since I was a kid and the fact is that credible, unbiased histories do not paint a picture of Hitler as Christian.
In general, I'm not all that fond of Christianity either, yet I still follow Christ. His other followers generally piss me off to no ends.
And technically, many of our Christian traditions are thinly veiled pagan rituals.
If he thought what he was doing was glorifying Christ, there you are. If you hold everyone else up to what YOU would do as a standard of Christianity... you have became the one "True" Christian. Do you see what I'm saying?
Did he act like I would? Nope. Lots of Christians act in ways I consider morally repugnant. I'm sure lots of Christians act in ways you would find morally repugnant too. The fact is you don't know what is going on in their mind. Faith is unobservable, as is belief. If they say it, you kinda have to take their word for it... or it is judging another's heart.
Edit: My hubby is pretty understanding about other people loving me I mean when you are as loved as I am, your spouse learns to adapt
Exactly. He didn't. He had the Bible rewritten to remove the Jewish influences from Jesus' story and make him a pagan war god. He declared churches illegal. He called Christianity a diseased religion. He did NOT think he was glorifying Christ.
Actually, it sounds to me like he thought everyone's impression of Jesus was incorrect and he was trying to "right" it. That would imply that he loved his interpretation of what Christ was. Christianity IS a diseased religion. That has nothing to do with Christ though.
It's also worth noting at this point that the Nazi connection to pagan rites is also well documented. There are existing films of Nazi ceremonies that are blatantly and consciously patterned after Teutonic pagan fertility rituals, complete with bonfires and half-naked women being paraded in on floats.
I will give Q some credit, at least he pulled out a 'source' that wore it's preconceptions and desire for confirmation bias on its sleeve. But honestly, if you actually look into it (and you don't have to look nearly as hard for this as you do to pull all the 'evidence' that people do to 'prove' that Hitler was Christian) it's pretty plain that Nazism in general and Hitler specifically were not Christian.
are you guys unaware of the ties between Hitlar and his contemporary Islamic leaders? he admired them for their hatred of the Jews and saw great value in collaboration with them. this is hardly someone who is a follower of Christ
Vilification through association is a tired argument. if a man driving a truck under the influence of alcohol hits and kills a child, does that mean all men who drive trucks are DUI offending child killers?
Further, if an individual claims association with a group, that individual is not necessarily granted the association (accept from self-proclaimed antagonists of that group, of course). Especially if said individual is apparently devoid of the core values of that group. It is only the simple minded who accept such a claim.
Conversely, if a driver operates a truck under the influence and hits a child... does that mean he never drove a truck? Or that he wasn't driving a truck at the time of the accident because it makes trucks look bad?
Nevertheless, even if at one time Hitler actually WAS a Christian, by the time of WW II he most definitely was not, and by the end of his life he most DEFINITELY was NOT.
If the truck driver says, "I renounce truck driving" and actively attempts to destroy trucking companies, then it is fair to say "He was a truck driver at one time" but it is NOT fair to say "He was a truck driver his whole life."
So no Germans involved were Christians either? Core values appear to involve burning witches, beating slaves and stoning adulteresses. Judging by the actions of Christians over the centuries. Not seeing a contradiction here. Only the simple minded could ignore history to that extent.
To be clear, I don't dispute that he said stuff like that. What I add is that he is also well known for disliking Christianity, telling crowds things that he knew were lies to get them on his side, and outlawing the church. I don't ignore history, I look at the whole thing. You said I should do the research, I have. And I site reputable sources.
Most Christians claim to dislike Christianity. Outlawed the Church? Funniest lie you have repeated yet.
Not a lie. But the easiest way to divert attention is to call the truth a lie. Every time I try to treat you like an adult, you certainly don't reciprocate.
Bye Bye, lie lie.
Show me the evidence that Hitler outlawed the church.
You will find some excuse to reject it, anyway.
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/h … t/id2.html
Hitler said that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science. In a diary entry of 28 December 1939, Joseph Goebbels wrote that "the Fuhrer passionately rejects any thought of founding a religion. He has no intention of becoming a priest. His sole exclusive role is that of a politician." In Hitler's political relations dealing with religion he readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes."
Christianity remained the dominant religion in Germany through the Nazi period, and its influence over Germans displeased the Nazi hierarchy. Evans wrote that Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition". Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs', 'abortions in black cassocks'".
That's from the Wikipedia.
And most Christians express that they don't like the church. Not the same thing.
So claiming that he outlawed the church was untrue then?
Do you find such jumps comforting or do you really think you can so easily take me off guard?
I see nothing in that about him having outlawed the church.
Save me a seat by the fire,
You'll be there by yourself.
Well, not by yourself, but I won't be there.
If only you were as clever as you think you are...
If your majick book is true, you certainly will be.
Save me a seat by the fire.
Well, at least you've also proven that you haven't read the book either.
But that's okay, I expected no more than that.
No - I have read it. I just take it at its word - unlike you who rewrites it to suit yourself.
I expected no more from you.
Sorry - I already did. Tell me about Hitler having outlawed the Church again - I like that make believe story the best of all that you parrot.
Save me a seat by the fire.
No, you proved nothing. You made an accusation then sat back and felt satisfied.
No - I asked you to prove something you claimed as true and you could not because it was untrue.
After all - "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
Save me a seat by the fire.
Hmmmmm, are you saying sometimes Christians knowing dislike other Christians? They tell crowds things they know are lies to get them on their side. Kinda like those Westboro Baptist Church people?
No, what I'm saying is that Hitler was not a Christian. The large body of evidence points to that. Westboro is a different discussion, I'm staying on point for this forum (for once.)
So he called himself a Christian, but wanted some modifications to the Roman Catholic Church. Sound like every non Catholic Christian out there. I liken it to the Muslims who are now saying that Einstein was a Muslim and he used his Quran as information for relativity.
To be fair hatred for Jews was taught in school at least in Italy. They blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus so they saw the Jews as enemies. I know this because my father outlaw was in school in Italy during the war and I've spoken to many 1 generation Canadian Italians who have told me the same, all Catholics BTW. Are you saying none of those Catholics were Christians because they hated the Jewish people?
Anti-Semitism had been fashionable in Europe for most of the 19th Century. I'm not talking about that. That's an entire discussion in itself.
If by modifications you mean complete destruction and utter repudiation, I guess you would have a point. But no matter what anyone says, I find it difficult to call someone a Christian who's hatred of Christianity is so well known.
It's my understanding that his plan for the RCH was to overhaul it's hierarchy. How many of us wouldn't want to do that. Christians come in all shapes and sizes. Are you aliening yourself with that real Christian group? Do you get to decide that Catholics aren't Christians because they hold onto symbols of Jesus? Sorry, you don't get to exclude people from Christianity because you don't like their thinking. I brought up the anti-Semitism as a way of showing you that one can an anti-semite and still be a Christian, one may not be a good Christian or good people, but they may feel they are right as you do.
Read the Wikipedia. He didn't want to overhaul, he wanted to eliminate.
As for the part about outlawing the church, aka-dj did link to an article that referred to another link. I actually had that link, but it was three years ago and it's been taken down since then. It was for Rutgers Review of Religion and Law (or some title like that, but it was Rutgers University.) So I have to wait until I can get to the library and check out the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
Previous to the war, and in the early days of the war, Hitler wanted to reorganize the Catholic church. He wanted to do the same to Protestant churches. His goal was the eventual elimination of same. I don't keep saying it over and over again just to hear myself talk, he hated Christianity. Read the Wikipedia.
It is clear, however, that Hitler's Aryan, occultist, pagan Germano-Christianity was at odds with the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church despite his having been baptized and raised Catholic. It is quite interesting to me to read anyone claim that the Catholic Church is not Christian, that is rather ahistorical.
Oh, I have been through that argument in real life, more than once. There was a Baptist preacher once who tried to tell me how the Catholic Church is sinful, heretical and that his was the authentic faith handed down by Jesus. I don't mock the faith of others until they attack mine. I asked him what bible would he trust most. He said the King James Bible, i laughed, out loud, in his face.
When it comes to belief systems there is little point engaging beyond one's own desire to engage and exercise one's own intellectual muscles.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Muslim Brotherhood(yes they were in existence) raised a couple of SS Divisions for the Nazis. I guess the enemy of my enemy and all.
If Hitler was such a "good" Christian, where, in the Bible, did he get "instruction" to hate, and ultimately (try to) destroy the Jews?
My Bible says that the believer is to BLESS Israel, not hate it (her).
As I understand it - he had a personal relationship with Jesus. He didn't get his religion out of a book like you do.
Who says he was a "good," Christian - you sure you are not making that up again? Because I think your Super Daddy will burn you for that - according to your bible that is. Have you actually bothered reading it?
You must have missed this.
My Bible says that the believer is to BLESS Israel, not hate it (her).
Israel. Not Jews. Your bible says to kill homosexuals as well. As I said - Hitler had a personal relationship - not religion from a book as you do. I suggest you go read the rest of it as well.
Personal relationship is the LAST thing he had.
So - you reject the idea of personal relationships with Jesus. Interesting. Seems to me this is somewhat contradicting your own claims.
I just question (reject) Hitler's alleged one.
I see -Interesting how that works. Seems to me his actions fit very nicely with what the bible says.
"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. "
Did god tell you into your head who has/had a relationship with him or are you judging for yourself?
I'm sure you've heard of this one.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.
21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
Yes - as I understand it - Hitler believed in him and shall have eternal life. What is your point again? That you get your religion from a book? I already know that.
What does that have to do with Hitler being a Christian with a personal relationship? Do you believe Leviticus 20:13?
You are the one doing the judging. Odd how that works.
Why is that odd?
You make similar judgements too. Is that odd also?
Because you are accusing me of something that you are doing. Doesn't your Super Daddy frown on that?
It is odd because it seems as though you don't actually believe.
No, I don't believe Hitler was a Christian.
Instead, he was, a Christian. Understand, now?
No - it seems you don't actually believe that accusing me of doing what you are actually doing will get you thrown in the lake of fire. Like Hitler I suppose. Another Christian like yourself. Understand now?
Haven't got a clue about what you just said.
I think you are getting very confused.
No I understand just fine thanks. No wonder your religion causes so many conflicts.
We are just having a conversation!
Aren't you? Are you in conflict, all by yourself?
Trying to send me to bed, are you?
Is that how you want this to end?
I thought you were too tired to read anything. Great job on diverting the thread though.
This stuff is easy. I like easy. Don't you like easy?
Pardon me for not being interested in evolutionary propaganda.
It's obviously for the ones who need complex explanations, because there are no simple answers.
The Devil's in the detail, they say. Seems to be true!
Yes - attack proven science that you cannot be bothered to understand in order to divert attention from the facts. Well done you!
So. You can't convince me with "easy" explanations?
God created everything. That's pretty easy. Don't you think?
Evolutionary propaganda? Your killing me here. Almost fell out of my chair. It took me a while to clean my coffee off my screen.
A while back you would have been one of those guys claiming that the idea of a round earth is propaganda. Perhaps the sun and planets and all the stars orbit the earth? Let's just throw all of this science junk out, let's start with our computers, mine has coffee all over it anyway.
The is a documentary called "The Occult History of the Third Reich" It gives significant evidence that the Nazi leadership, including Hitler practice Pagan rituals and were driven by these supersticians. The Nazi's were actually hostile to Christianity and worked to purge it from Germany.
And you're accusing me of parroting? Why does Hitler having said something at one time make him a Christian?
Oh yeah, because you say so.
Sorry if the facts upset you. Not really my problem.
The facts don't upset me at all. When you get a few, let me know.
Ha ha ha.
Good one. Wish I came up with that one!
What would be the point exactly? You will pretend they don't exist and get all upset again.
Really? Confirmation bias ill becomes you.
I haven't gotten upset with you.
In any case, I said I would provide the info from Rise and Fall of the Third Reich when I can get to the library and check it out. It's on a specific page. I used to have the link that aka-dj referenced, but Rutgers took it down. Still, the archived NY Times article did reference it.
Yet still there was no mention of Hitler having outlawed the Church. Guess you didn't bother reading that either. I expected no more than that from you, but it does prove you have saved yourself a seat by the fire. Rutgers does tend to remove content that has been proven to be false.
Confirmation bias definitely suits you.
I said that it's in the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. A book. That I need to get from the library.
That you ignore that simple fact in order to make a point that doesn't actually exist but you are just dying to be true does not surprise me. Disappoint, yes. I would really rather you act like the adult you claim to be. I have read it in there but I don't own my own copy.
I take it back. Confirmation bias seems to be your main source of support.
I've been reading through this thread since its inception and the back and forth is almost exhausting.
There are simple facts that cannot be denied here:
1) Hitler was baptized and raised as a Roman Catholic.
2) He voluntarily read Scripture, and supported his actions with passages, as he interpreted them.
3) He wove his personal philosophy and beliefs tapestry from strings taken from just about everywhere; philosophy, religion, the occult, etc.
Now, here's where I always see Christians run into problems. In my experience, the average Evangelical Protestant Christian carries some fairly skewed opinions. They include the mistaken beliefs that:
1) Roman Catholics are not Christians.
2) Anyone who interprets differently from the way they do, or their pastors do, is in grievous error.
3) A belief system, to be titled Christian, must carry absolutely no influence, tradition, or education outside of the Bible.
Here are some of the problems I see with these particular facts/beliefs.
First, Roman Catholics are indeed Christians. Their baptism makes them such. Sadly for those of you who wish to deny Hitler's Christianity, the Church does indeed keep a sacraments record for all of us baptized Catholic. My baptism, confirmation, entrance into, and exit from, the convent, and my marriage are all recorded in the Church. On one handy dandy little record. That hasn't come into practice in this century. As long as I am aware, the Church has recorded those things. So, like it or not, there is indeed a paper record that states Hitler was a Christian.
Second, if you can read a bible, you can interpret a verse. That interpretation may differ widely from others you've seen or heard, but to you, it's absolutely true and correct. That, in my limited experience, can be seen among those who read the bible as a spiritual record of Christ and God's love AND among those who read/study it as a purely academic endeavor.
Lastly, the saddest truth of all is that it is rarely a person's ACTIONS that define their faith. Rather it is what they SAY and what people choose to hear. Anyone aware of the fact that murder is wrong in the secular moral order as well as in just about every religious tradition, would be hard pressed to say that Hitler's actions were acceptable or justifiable by ANY stretch of the imagination, whether through his own personal, religious interpretation or a simple humanistic approach.
So, Christians, like it or not...he was IN NAME a Christian. To those of you who argue that his Christianity is what motivated his actions, I would certainly offer a different opinion. His personal psychosis is what did that. Sadly, like a bazillion people before him and since, that personal psychosis may have been nurtured in part by the religion he was exposed to in his developing years. It certainly wasn't the simple religion of love God, love your neighbor that Christ taught and espoused, and in my opinion, if you have to complicate a religion beyond that, it just ain't worth trying to practice. The way I see it, Jesus came to make it really THAT simple. We seem insistent on making it as convoluted as it was for the Jews in the Old Testament.
Who's got time for that?
*Edit: As an aside, though Hitler was, in name, a Christian, he had no deep love for the Church (not just Roman Catholic, but as a whole). He did indeed persecute and kill men and women from all walks of life. People like Corrie ten Boom - a devout Christian woman whose family was imprisoned for hiding Jews - and numerous priests and religious for standing against him. At the end of the day, if you didn't ask how high when he said jump, you were guaranteed an eventual trip to the gas chamber or appointment with a firing squad - Christian, Jew, Pagan, atheist, man, woman, child, homosexual, heterosexual - none of that mattered. He MADE himself God, and like many rulers of the past, he convinced the world that his directive and authority had come from God himself. Lots of people might have stood against him as a human ruler, but who was willing to question the will of GOD? That doesn't make him Christian so much as it makes him a highly intelligent masterful manipulator.
You're amazing, Mo. Really. Amazing. Your 'it is what it is' approach deserves the upmost respect, in my opinion. None of the 'yeah, but' mumbo jumbo. Straightforward, honest, and without the unfair or obvious slanted bias that is often so prominent in those sometimes looking to create loopholes or blot out what's ugly...we can all certainly learn a lot from you. You're awesomeness does NOT go unnoticed, woman! I think I love you
Aww, Mystic, that's unbelievably kind and uplifting. Thank you! I just don't see the sense in denial. The kicking and screaming gets us nowhere, IMO. And, when it comes down to it, it seems to me that regardless of what this one man was or wasn't, what matters most is what do we do to keep from becoming like him? Spend more time worrying about that, and the rest becomes what it is - the ugly past that leads us to a much more beautiful present and future.
Hear, hear! I do not think anyone should really care what religion/non-religion, etc. Hitler was or claimed to be...he was evil, he did evil things to human beings, atrocities that boggles the mind. He was a sick, sick and disturbed man that, sadly and unfortunately, was excellent at convincing others to follow and support his agenda. That's the fact of it. Period. *Steps down from soapbox*
I will only disagree with your assessment in one regard, Hitler wasn't sick. Evil is a willful action, sickness is involuntary.
On one hand, I'll go with you here. I believe that most evil actions are committed by choice. I think, however, that in many, there is a fundamental incapacity to recognize or care that one's actions may be evil, provided they help to further the evil one's ideals and goals. For lack of a better word, there is something inside a person who chooses to do the unspeakable evils that Hitler did that simply cannot keep up the wall between what is right and wrong. Does that make sense?
Yes, sick as in his actions and agendas was morbid. Disturbing. Disgusting. Repulsive. Sickening.
What I say has nothing at all to do Roman Catholicism. Please don't get bogged down in that. I don't say Catholics aren't Christians and I have not said that. It's entirely to do with Hitler's well-documented dislike of Christianity and belief in reincarnation and desire to take Germany back to a pre-Christian, pagan era and outlaw and destroy churches.
As I've said, relativism in this case is an excuse for evil. I won't deny that I would not like for Hitler to be Christian, but in this case it's not about confirmation bias. I'm after the truth and it's solidly on my side.
And if you can't draw the line at Hitler, truly you won't draw the line anywhere.
Chris, I in no way meant to imply that Catholicism is the issue. I made the points I did specifically about his perversion of scripture to, unfortunately, claim him as a Christian. The issue isn't now, nor has it EVER been, what label he chose to wear. The issue is what he chose to do, and how he attempted to justify those actions. I was speaking to ALL of the people who insist that they know and understand a man whose actions were so despicable that there is simply no way to excuse or explain them. Atheists are right when they say he was a Christian. He was. Whether he exhibited Christlike behavior (ultimately THE mark of a Christian or not) is not on question. He did not. I also made it clear that his psychopathic hatred made anyone and everyone a target to him, as long as they had the nerve to breathe a single word of opposition.
While you don't claim to paint Catholicism with broad strokes, neither do I attempt to paint all Evangelical Protestant Christians that way. If that's all you got from that post, read it a few more times because you missed pretty much every point I was making.
*Edit: And just as FYI, you will rarely see me in defense of the Roman Catholic Church. I don't feel a need to defend my chosen denomination of Christianity, because I am more than well aware of why I chose it, and it has not failed me in those areas. There is only ONE thing that will ever cause me anger, and when that subject is brought up in any religious conversation, I choose NOT to respond, simply because I am all to conscious of my likelihood to stray from Christian behavior while discussing said issue.
I think where we really disagree is in the area of self-labellng. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because he called himself a Christian, he was a Christian. I'm saying that although he did say that, he also said other things when crowds weren't there. He did not consider himself a Christian, and he wasn't one.
Most of the atheists who care enough to post here pretty much have their axe to grind.
I'm saying only that he was validly baptized in a Christian church and raised as a Christian. I also said that his actions did not in any way reflect the faith in which he was raised. I also said his philosophy/belief structure was pulled from any and everywhere and bastardized to meet his own objectives.
In the end, it all comes down to whether a person has the integrity to act the way their faith dictates that they should. He was not Christlike. He was, however, a Christian. So is Jimmy Swaggart. Jim Bakker. So is the man who shoots and kills an abortion doctor.
It's a label. Whether I apply it to myself, or someone else does, it doesn't reflect my thoughts or beliefs unless I make it so. He did not.
Really, though, read through the post again. I thought I'd explained it well enough. *shrugs*
Hello Chris. Please, if you don't mind, when you said, "It's entirely to do with Hitler's well-documented dislike of Christianity and belief in reincarnation and desire to take Germany back to a pre-Christian, pagan era and outlaw and destroy churches." what is it exactly that you mean here? Also, what is the "It's"? Thanks so much.
It is very, very important that he proves Hitler was not a christian, despite the facts that prove otherwise. Like many christians, Hitler claimed to hate the established church and wanted to impose his own interpretation. It is more a question of interpretation than anything else. There is no question that Hitler was christian and so was most of the country at the time. But facts are not something Mr Neal is bothered with. The truth is of no concern either.
Most christians seem to dislike christianity so I don't see how that has any bearing on anything.
Many christians also believe in reincarnation and angels having sex with humans. Some of them also believe lots of other nonsense. Believing nonsense does not automatically get you booted from the club. Lets be honest - this is the basis of this religion anyway so I don't see how that makes Hitler a non-christian.
Christianity was copied from previous Pagan religions also so I don't see how that has any bearing on whether or not he was a christian either.
Mr Neal claims that Hitler outlawed churches as well - this is utter nonsense with no bearing in reality.
You say some interesting things though. Where do you get the statistic that "most Christians seem to dislike Christianity?"
And how many, as near as you can get the figures, are "many christians" who "believe in angels having sex with humans"?
Although there is little doubt that many Christian practices are copied from "previous Pagan religions" Christianity itself is not. Still, it would be interesting to get your facts on that.
I understand that it is very, very important to you to prove that Hitler was a Christian, despite the facts proving otherwise. "Hating the church" is peripheral. Hating Christianity is not.
Impatience on your part is not the same as being correct.
I know that it's so much easier to say something than to prove it, but I'm not letting you slide on that. Facts matter in the truth, even if they don't to you.
I haven't seen you present any facts as yet. Where are your sources? Or, are we just going on your word?
Hitler said a great many things about Christianity and religion, but the facts show he was a religious man and believed in God along the same lines as his Catholic mother raised him. He publicly described himself as a Catholic even though he didn't agree with its central teachings
Hitler abolished atheist and free thinking groups, but did not abolish the Church or Christianity.
The funny thing is, that's exactly the same article I've referenced in support of my views.
And herein lies the problem. Two views, one article that seemingly supports them both. Again, one's claim to be a Christian, or the claim of others that one is such, doesn't ensure Christlike behavior from the individual in question.
I agree with you both about the article and about that one's claims to be Christian don't ensure Christ-like behavior.
I know I come off as kind of rigid about this even to people who aren't hell-bent on 'proving' Hitler's Christianity, but Hitler is a special case. I wouldn't be like this about John Shelby Spong. It's that Hitler, although he was baptized, had a very real hatred for and disavowal of Christianity.
For those parts of it that didn't suit his purposes, yes. It just goes back to the "not a true (real) Christian" argument. We know bits of what he said, bits of what people said he said, and the actual actions that he took to change our world forever. There just isn't any denying that he was baptized and had a background in Christianity. At one time in his life, we are even told that he was a devout believer. I totally get where you're coming from, but at the end of the day, we have to go with what we know.
I agree. And what I know is that he wasn't a Christian.
Then, you would have seen in that very article the sources that say Hitler was a religious man and his religion was Christianity.
Perhaps, your aversion to Hitler having the same religion as you is not so much based in fact but more in personal emotion?
We see plenty of people right here on these forums who call themselves Christians but don't act or behave in any Christ-like ways at all, quite the contrary in fact. It's no stretch of the imagination to accept the fact Hitler was a Christian, too, considering just how hypocritical others are by calling themselves Christians.
No, it's based on a more thorough study of history and the facts. I don't deny that the church has a bloody history. I would vastly prefer that it didn't.
Chris-tell me something. I'm giving some thought to what you're saying, but what specifically did Hitler do that make him NOT Christian. And you know that I'm not baiting you. First, that's not my style, and second, I want to really understand your adamance about this.
His stated hatred of Christianity, his intent to outlaw it and destroy it wherever he could, his desire to take Germany back to pagan roots and a "pre-Christian" era.
Yeah, he called himself a Christian at some points but this is Hitler we're talking about. Studying his WHOLE life, he didn't think of himself as a Christian in any sense of the term, certainly not by the time he committed suicide and not really at the start of WW II.
I'm not one who thinks that if you called yourself a Christian at any point in your life, you are a Christian for life. People can certainly renounce their faith. They do it all the time.
Paul stated outright hatred of Christians as well...and persecuted and killed them. Peter denied even knowing Christ. Then sliced off a guard's ear to defend him.
What if, at his last breath, Hitler repented privately, but lost his life before being able to do so publicly?
Paul was not a Christian when he did those things. When he became a Christian, he stopped doing those things. Not really a good analogy.
A lot of people do a lot of bad things and I don't think that makes them not Christian by definition.
If Hitler did that, then it would be 'between him and God' in the most literal sense. And though it's possible, it's not probable according to what we know about him.
But Peter walked with Jesus when he did what he did. I guess my point is again that it boils down to the who is/isn't a TRUE Christian argument. It safer to simply say that none of us knows the relationship that Hitler may/may not have had with Christ, no matter WHAT his relationship with his church. That said, you are absolutely right...it's between him and God. And like it or not, Paul was a Jew, as was Jesus...a member of God's chosen people who truly, without doubt or question, believed he was doing God's will.
A silly, but apt example. Raj on The Big Bang theory hates Indian food and doesn't want to live in India. Does that mean he isn't Indian?
Hitler was disturbed. Severely. That is why he did what he did. IMO, that's why motivated him. A severe break in his mind that made him think what he did was okay, for whatever reasons he chose to do it.
Question. Hitler gave the orders. Others did the dirty deeds. Many others. Were they also severely disturbed? In your opinion.
Perhaps simply misguided in the beginning, but as it progressed, any decent human being would have found themselves slipping from sanity.
Unfortunately, decent is simply defined as conforming to acceptable behavior. So, I doubt German citizens working to exterminate other groups had cause to pause and ponder their sanity. Hitler only gave them the opportunity to do what they appear to have collectively believed to be decent.
I suppose that's one way to look at it. I have a difficult time finding the extermination of human beings for political, personal, or economic gain in any way decent, but that's just me.
I agree but it happens repeatedly in the world. A leader is only one person leading the willing.
In reality there are two different factors working here.
The first is that the Germans were historically known for the sorts of things the Nazis were known for during wartime. They wiped out entire villages because a few people rebelled. In Belgium. They also did the same thing during WW I.
The other is that it is known that kind of killing takes a psychological toll on people. The SS troops charged with going in and killing people the way they did had to be rotated out on a regular basis because they were developing problems.
Although the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis was mind boggling I think it is unfair to put that stigma on the German people as if they were somehow unique. Humanity, as a whole, has proven themselves capable of crimes against humanity at many, many turns. Those of us who seek to view others as, somehow, repulsive in the extent to which they were willing to go run the risk of turning a blind eye to the fact that they were human; as we are.
No history of any first world nation, that I am aware of, is without moments when the majority should have stepped back in shock at the way minorities were treated. The only thing the Germans did that may not be in line with how others have acted is that they owned their prejudices. They were willing to act on them and feel righteous in those acts. Hitler did not drive them to it he simply made it acceptable to openly act in line with their beliefs. And, they were not alone in their belief in their superiority or in their prejudices. Nazi ideals were embraced by many throughout the world; whether their governments acted on these ideals or not.
Going forward; How often has the individual within any nation voiced words that were not repulsed by the listeners and sometimes cheered on by many; which, if acted on, could have done as much damage to another individual as was done to entire ethnic groups by the German army.
We were, and remain, no different as a collective. Be it individuals, or ideals, we strive to exterminate that which we consider to be threatening to our own sense of superiority and security; without attempting to understand it.
I've actually said much the same thing often, and been attacked for it.
But I was listening to Dan Carlin (I highly recommend it) and he was talking about WW I and how the Germans committed atrocities that shocked everybody else. I'm citing history. What they did in WW I could actually describe a lot of WW II, but the difference was that in WW II the acts were carried out by specifically dedicated troops, while during WW I they were carried out by regular troops.
The Armenians suffered at the hands of the Turks in WWI, with little to no reprisal from the world community. That dark chapter in our history is buried. Probably, because the acts weren't perpetrated on Europeans. We tend to notice the harm done to those most like us. And, we tend to be horrified when those we can compare ourselves most closely to are the perpetrators.
Genocides are on going. I wonder why we focus on Hitler and the Nazis as if they were some type of an anomaly within the human race. Seriously. Stalin killed three million peasants simply by removing all of the food from one region. Millions have died from ethnic cleansing in Africa.
I see little difference in the negative effect to the individual psyche between the extermination of an entire group by another group and individual prejudice that boils inside, not acted on by anything other than words. Hate is hate. We all are guilty of it on some level. Setting minimum standards of conduct within the world community is important, but if we don't view our own selves as part of the problem we can't have hope of better understanding humans, like us, who act out their hatred. And, without attempting to connect, the minimum standards will be all we can expect and they will consistently be ignored when possible.
Within the scope of this specific forum the focus is Hitler, not Stalin. Stalin, and Mao, and Pol Pot, and many others are acknowledged genocide machines.
The Armenian genocide is well-documented but you're right, it's not as well known probably because it didn't happen to or because of Europeans.
But Peter also repented and asked forgiveness. I will say again; although it's possible, it's so highly unlikely that I feel reasonably safe saying Hitler did not give his life to Jesus before he died. And it's not like Hitler was all alone, someone would have noticed something.
I just don't think we can ever know. At the end of the day, human beings are capable of almost anything - regardless of faith or none.
Okay, but if you're going to convince me then you have to give me something that might lead me to believe he actually gave his life to Christ. Simply saying at some point in his life he was a Christian is insufficient, because of all the proof to the contrary (including in his own head.)
I don't know him. And I am in no position to judge what a person has/hasn't done in their heart. Herein lies the problem. I get accused of not being Christian all the time because on occasion, I *gasp* agree with an atheist, agnostic, or have the nerve to criticize my church. The only thing I know for sure is that Christians do evil. Sometimes in the name of the very God they serve. Christian is a name...a label. Many, many people wear it. Following Christ is what matters. Again, I don't believe Hitler followed Christ. Doesn't mean that he and many others didn't call himself a Christian. And at the end of the day, that cannot be refuted.
It also cannot be refuted that many, many, many Christians hate, kill, molest children, commit adultery, dabble in the occult, and express their disdain for the church.
And I'm not trying to convince you. I don't do debate. I figured we were just having a conversation and exchanging ideas.
Another beautiful example of the True Scotsman fallacy based on personal emotion. Well done. It's always nice to have clear cut examples of fallacies.
Another beautiful example of using an actual argument in the wrong way to prop yourself up. Simply saying I'm using the No True Scotsman fallacy is insufficient and lazy.
That is a blatant contradiction and a use of the True Scotsman fallacy.
On top of that, Hitler never renounced his faith.
Sorry, you're just plain wrong.
One more time, Chris, that is what the facts say, not me.
Now, you're just being a troll, and certainly not exhibiting Christ-like behavior.
I'm sorry, you prefer we keep going back and forth with the "uh-HUH!" - "nuh-UH!" that we were falling into? That would be more Christ-like?
Interesting definition of Christianity.
I am doing no such thing, that is what you're doing.
That's too funny!
"Nuh-uh! I am not doing the 'nuh-uh/uh-huh!' thing!"
"Uh-huh! Yes you are!"
"Nuh-uh! You are!"
"Nuh-uh! You are!"
Thanks for the giggle!
I'm not fond of Christianity... in fact every day I grow to dislike it more and more. That doesn't mean I don't have faith in Christ. I just dislike the religion. I don't care for a whole lot of Christians I meet either.
So where does that put me?
What is more important, loving Christianity or loving Christ? The two aren't even remotely the same.
But to relate it to the topic at hand, regardless of which one is more important, Hitler did neither. He did not love Christ and he did not love Christianity. He tried to have the former rewritten so that Jesus was not the Christ, and he outlawed and wanted to destroy Christianity.
So again, how is he a Christian? Because the worlds most notorious and accomplished liar said he was?
Once again, we observe plenty of people right here on these forums who might call themselves Christians but exhibit no Christ-like behavior at all.
It's not the same. None of these people are professional liars who lead a country by lying to it (as Hitler did.)
None of these people (as far as I know) claim to be Christian in public and then in private talk about how disgusting Christianity is and plot to eradicate it.
None of them yearn to return to the time before Christianity was introduced in their country (ironically, since Germany wasn't even Hitler's country) and introduce pagan rituals as part of their political life.
I agree, many Christians do not show Christ-like behavior. But Hitler was different.
So what? The details of not exhibiting Christ-like behavior from self-professed Christians is irrelevant.
And, you know that how?
There it is again, the NTS fallacy.
I know it by studying history.
Thanks for asking!
Obviously, not the history of Hitler, though. That has already been provided for you.
If you're talking about what Q provided, I noticed that it was pretty much cherry-picked.
If you're talking about the Wikipedia entry, then I've read it and I don't see how it contradicts what I've said.
If you're talking about other sources, yes. They've been provided, and by people without the bias against Christianity. I've read quite a bit about Hitler and about Nazi Germany. Way more than is alluded to here, by me or by anybody else. If you want to argue history, bring more of it to the table.
No, they were just the important facts about Hitler. There are other sources, of course, but it would appear your denial of those facts and sources goes unabated.
Important according to who? People who state right from the outset that they are looking for things to hold against Christianity? Because that's what Q provided.
I do study the important facts about Hitler. I study ALL the important facts about Hitler, not just the ones that support my particular point of view.
Obviously, not you.
Odd that you miss so many facts about Hitler, like the fact that he was baptized as Roman Catholic, that he attended a monastery school, he was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church, as a young man he was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ" and his most ardent goal at the time was to become a priest and was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church.
Sorry, that you missed these facts.
I didn't miss them at all. What I also didn't do was state, "Oh, well. That settles it then. There is no more after that."
History means all of history, not just the parts that support whatever point you are trying to make.
The point you are making has been refuted by the historic facts.
Yes, I know that the point I am making is supported by historic facts.
Here are some more facts, real ones, not the ones you make up.
Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were given VETO power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. In turn they surtaxed the Catholics and gave the money to the Vatican.
Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education.
Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.”
Due to Hitler’s involvement with the Church he began enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home.
a) I already knew all this.
b) It doesn't change what I said or why I said it. When you can talk to that, then maybe you'll have something. I made up nothing.
c) You really desperately need to be right, don't you?
d) Repeat: Is this a good example of your daily discourse? Do you badger everyone until they agree with you, no matter what?
Typical, attack the person when you can no longer attack the argument.
The more I read about the catholic church the more I find myself thinking they have nothing to do with god or Christ or even religion for that matter.
It seems the only thing important to the catholic church is the catholic church.
For the sake of discussion, What is driving that thought?
I am not a student of the bible so forgive me if I quote wrongly but I believe that in Mathew it said "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Now whether you believe the bible teachings are from God or Christ doesn't really matter but it should matter to the Catholic church who have pronounced themselves the representatives of god on earth yet they have the audacity to store up their power influence and wealth against the teachings of the very god they say they represent.
I think this is just one of many things the Catholic church has done in direct defiance of their own biblical teachings.
Okay, So your issue is with the church as an organization, not specifically the Catholic religion?
I have no problem with God, its his fan club that's the problem!
The Catholic religion is the Catholic church.
Christianity or to follow Christ I would say is something totally different.
I understand the point you are making. Christianity as an organization as well as those who cling to that mob mentality thinking and claim exclusivity in a club is certainly an issue. Following Christ as a personal ideal is not as big of an issue. In my short time here I've certainly seen examples of both types
Now seriously, is the level of your everyday discourse?
Sorry, but the facts have already been presented and they don't agree with you, so it would appear it is little more than an emotional response on your part. Nice try.
Sorry simply saying "wrong" when I am in fact right is not helping. Hitler clearly was a Christian. Odd that you have chosen not to provide evidence to the contrary. I have provided more than enough evidence that Hitler was a christian. He simply interpreted it differently to you and hated the wishy washy version of christianity. He saw christ as a warrior - not a victim like you seem to want to be.
Still waiting for you to prove your claim that Hitler outlawed the church. Any time.
Your god does still throw those in the lake of fire - right?
I'm just wondering if Chris is so desperate to prove Hitler is not a Christian, that he wants to label Hitler Pagan, which, in turn, would then make Hitler's atrocious behavior and actions suddenly understandable then, if he were a pagan? A type of, 'Well, no wonder! That explains, everything!' type of mindset? Pawn him on the pagans because (some) Christians don't want to claim him? Grasping at straws? I do hope he isn't throwing pagans under the bus just to distance his own religion from the hideousness that was Hitler. I don't know if this is where he was heading in his previous statement that I questioned him about, he hasn't gotten back with me on that yet. I do hope this isn't the case. But I'm also not sure he would want to plainly say such if it is true, which is understandable due to the fact that he would then be doing to another religion what he obviously does not like being done to his own.
At the end of the day, Hitler was an expert propagandist. Claiming God was on his side was a clever part of promoting his evil cause, or perhaps he was delusional enough to believe it himself. Regardless, only those seeking to oppose God would attempt to bring credence to Hitler's claim.
It is very common for people to attempt to tie Hitler to their apologetic opponent. Conservatives cite his socialist/fascist claims, liberals remind us of his capitalistic traits. Atheists cite his catholic mother, Christians his admiration of Islam. In the end, Hitler wore many conflicting masks in his effort to convince the world to adopt him as it's totalitarian ruler.
It is foolish and self-serving when, in the place of any substantive argument, effort is made to attach Hitler to one's opposition.
William Shirer wrote that "under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.
In an 8 April 1941 entry, Goebbels wrote "He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_i … ristianity
Yes, Goebbels wrote that, but Goebbels was the Minister of Propaganda.
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)
And you think Goebbels wrote what Hitler did not tell him to?
Whether Hitler was a Christian or not. I'm curious. Does anyone believe Christianity drove him to commit the crimes against humanity? Since I don't think so, I don't see where his religion is important.
I think he was bat**** crazy and that caused him to do the things he did. I still think he was a Christian.
For me, the only reason it matters is the tendency of Christians to believe that no one who is a Christian can do anything bad. If they do, then they aren't a Christian. I think that there are people who are driven to do awful things by their religion. I think by saying "Oh, he wasn't a Christian." that removes any responsibility to self-regulate your own faith/denomination.
It's basically "Oh yeah the Bible says that adulterous women should be stoned to death, but that person who stoned that adulterous woman to death clearly wasn't a Christian." Instead of saying "Yeah, that passage that is in the Bible about stoning adulterous women, when we teach that we might want to do something about the possibility that someone will stone an adulterous woman to death."
Not only that, but it's not like Hitler targeting Jews, gays and others was really all that different from the historical reality of the Catholic Church, which made a practice of condemning anyone who disagreed with the doctrine of the church for heresy. Unless all historical Catholics are not Christians either, which I have also seen numerous people claim.
Martin Luther, the spark of the Protestant reformation was notoriously anti semitic, and several early church fathers were as well.
For me, it really isn't about "Christians can't do anything bad." I think those who have truly engaged with me know me better than that. Not coincidentally, I do see some people here who seem to believe that anything bad that a person has done can be blamed on their Christianity. Not everyone seems to think that, but there's one in particular who seems to believe that pretty fiercely.
I may be missing something, but I think for a lot of people, simply calling yourself a Christian at any point in your life for any reason means your stuck with it for life and therefor lumped in. I'm not just talking about Mo, I think I understand her a little better now. I try very hard not to make snap judgements about who is a Christian and who isn't, and to take seriously Jesus' admonition that it's not my job to decide who goes to Heaven and who doesn't. But Hitler is so totally on record as disliking Christianity, and wanting to take Germany back to a 'pre-Christian' time before Christianity 'polluted' Germany. I've seen the films of Nazi rallies that were patterned after pagan fertility rituals.
You're quite correct that the persecution of different groups was not out of line with a lot of church teaching at that time, or even historically. It's also true that pagan groups did the same. For what it's worth, that's the way people behaved. Anti-Semitism was a fashionable intellectual position in the late 19th Century, which was one of the impetus' for the Zionist movement.
I can understand why someone would say he wasn't Christian. We are defined more by how we act, than what we say. People lie.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck does it get to be labeled a swan because it claims to be one?
I don't think Hitler is a case of people saying he wasn't a 'true' Christian. I think it's a case of saying no Christian in their right mind would act that way. Which is fair. A Christian is only human and no human in their right mind would have done what he did.
I don't see it any differently from atheists scrambling to distance themselves from Stalin. You can't force people to pretend that the actions of one person define an entire group of loosely connected people.
With one distinct difference. Atheists don't say Stalin wasn't a true Atheist. We understand that anyone from any faith can let power corrupt their mind. What these leaders of countries such as Japan, North Korea and former Soviet Union do is to try to get rid of religion so that the people will worship them as a God.
Hmm. I don't know that Hitler was worshipped as a god. But, atheists do get quite out of sorts when insisting that atheism had nothing to do with the crimes against humanity perpetrated by atheistic regimes. So, I do wonder about the amount of time they spend arguing that Hitler was a Christian. I don't see that it matters.
It would certainly matter if all nations which were majority Christian backed the Nazi ideals, but they didn't. Correct me of I am wrong, but nations led by Christians joined forces with nations led by atheists to defeat Hitler. Religion doesn't appear to be a motivating factor for the alliance. Nor, can it be argued to have been a motivating factor of the Axis powers.
So, again, I have to point out the pointless nature of attempting to pin a religious label on der fuhrer.
Odd you spend so much time on it in in that case. Did you not notice it was a religionist started this thread in order to make the claim that Hitler was not a Christian - why is that do you think?
And what do you think was the motivating factor in attempting to wipe put a religious group? As you reject Hitler's claims that he was doing god's work.
Just so we are clear - Hitler claimed to be a christian doing the work of god. Most of the country was openly christian. He made an alliance with the christian churches (both versions) and used christian rhetoric to garner support. Then most of the people loading jews into the gas chambers were self professed christians.
The motto of the german army was "god with us." In fact - without the support of both churches, it is unlikely he would have come ti power and been able to do what he did. Here is actual footage of Hitler invoking God to stir up the masses of christians.
Yet you think religion was incidental and unimportant. Why?
I think religion was incidental because it usually is. In the West. You can claim he had the support of the church, but we both know what happened to those in the church who openly disagreed. Exactly what happened to those outside of the church who openly disagreed.
I do realize this thread was started by a Christian. I have no idea what motivated dj to start it. All I'm saying is this is a fabricated reason to argue over religion, primarily because Hitler said lots of things which could mean lots of things on the subjects of religion, the church, the protestant faith and the Jewish people.
Pinning anything on him definitively is very difficult. I think maybe we all attempt to distance ourselves because it helps us believe we could never have been involved in such as that but the truth is that ordinary people suffering difficult times were involved. We know,.deep down, we can make no such claims. We are not above doing stupid sh#t without thinking it through; to the detriment of our fellow man.
I think it is important to understand these things in order to prevent them from happening in the future.
The church was in a position to actually do something about it. They did nothing.
All you have said is that religion was not a motivator and you don't really know what was, but you are certain religion wasn't it. You have no suggestions as to what was the motivator? No opinion of your own? How odd that you are so certain that religion is incidental. Was it incidental in Northern Ireland? Was it incidental in California when they banned gay marriage by a vote?
No opinion of your own?
Let me ask you this. If religion was a motivator for the Germans, we must also assume it was a motivator for the resistance. If religion drove the genocide, then religion fought against it.
What of China and Russia? They fought with us against Hitler. They were also guilty of crimes against humanity. We can't say religion drove their actions.
WWII isn't assumed to have been a religious conflict. Personally, i think the short and shallow answer is the European mindset of the time. Most of your countries were imperialistic. The glory of Rome was mirrored in the glory of England when the ruled a large chunk of the world. Many European countries had puppet governments in Africa and the Middle East. Germany had been beaten down hard in WWI and they simply dreamed of becoming a power ala the English model.
What does WWII have ti do with the genocide or Hitler's christianity? No opinions of your own again?
Hitler made multiple statements of a derogatory nature about Christianity. So, I do think we all understand the value of a binding force. Understanding that value doesn't make us a part of it. It makes us realize the benefits of using it.
Anti semitism wasn't a German invention. It was an integral part of the European mindset. Did Christianity fuel it? Certainly. But, no other European country set up gas chambers in response to that anti Semitism. They were also peopled by Christians. What was the difference? Was it a particular brand of Christianity in Germany, or something else?
Yes - Hitler was not happy with the wishy washy version. Not sure what the rest of your questions mean as related to Hitler being a christian. Do you have any opinion of your own as to why Hitler's christianity went so far?
Was it his Christianity that drove him? You apparently believe so, yet have offered nothing more than that assertion. Are you saying that the Germans, because of their Christianity, started concentration camps and attempted to exterminate so many different groups?
Please don't lie about what I said - I never said any such thing. Go back and read what I said.
No opinion of your own then? Odd - I never see you offer an opinion other than to shoot down some one else's.
Seriously? What am I typing, other than my opinions? You keep alluding to Christianity,yet say you aren't alluding to Christianity? So, really RA. What is your opinion? Other than not liking my opinion enough to accept it at face value.
Too lazy to go back and actually read what I wrote? What opinion is that? That I am wrong about something I never said? You are starting to look very troll-like. Alluding? Please stop lying about me - thanks.
I suppose it was too much to ask you to participate in an honest conversation. Oh well, have a nice day.
It seems that whether Hitler was a Christian or not is a very debatable subject.
It also seems that a definition of what a Christian is may be useful.
My understanding of what makes a person a Christian is somewhat simple...but first let's clearly define some things that do not qualify someone as a Christian; 1.)...an affiliation with a particular Christian church (I.e....Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc) does not make you a Christian simply through association or membership. 2.) ...your profession that you are in support of the religious beliefs of one the so called Christian churches does not make you a Christian. 3.) ...your self proclamation that you are in fact a Christian, does not make you a Christian.
O.K. So what makes you a Christian...
A Christian is someone: a.) Who acknowledges and recognizes that we live in a sinful world and that God himself is the ultimate judge in what constiutes sinful behavior. b.) Who acknowledges Jesus Christ as the son of God (thus CHRISTian) and that through his death the penalty for sinful behavior has been paid. c.) Whose behavior after accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior will reflect a manifestatation of their beliefs in action. Simply believing and testifying the merits of Jesus are not enough, you must turn away from sinful behavior and at the very least attempt to live a more santified and holy life.
If this discribes Hitler, then I guess yes he was a Christian.
I am no expert on Christianity or on Hitler, but I would venture to say Hitler was not a Christian. Did he associate himself with a particular religious doctrine, possibly. Did he publicly profess that he was supporting or affilitated with a particular Church, possibly. Neither of which “makes” him a Christian.
However I sincerely doubt he recognized and or proclamed Jesus as the Son of God or accredited him with his salvation from sin.
As far as the inference that “Christians do murderous things, like genocide.” I would again reference the definition of Christian as an explanation. Are Christians perfect? NO! Do Christians make mistakes? Yes. Is it possible Christians could or have done bad things in the name of good? Yes. Does this mean that ALL Christians past, present, and future are evil and personally responsible for others who call themselves by that name? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
"you must turn away from sinful behavior and at the very least attempt to live a more santified and holy life."
Who gets to define what sinful behavior is and what a sanctified or holy life is? You? There are at least three people currently on the forums claiming that god speaks directly to them - one of those?
Every society has certain standards by which we hold ourselves accountable. If you choose to live within the boundaries of a community within that society, you choose to hold yourself accountable for those standards. If you violate those standards you suffer the consequences set up by the ruling authority as a penalty for "breaking the rules".
The community of God is no different. God ultimately is the judge. We are personally accountable to God, and God alone for our behavior.
Do your research...gather whatever information you have available within your means and decide for yourself what it means to live a "holy and sanctified" life according to God's standard.
Whether I or someone else judges your behavior as right or wrong is of no consequence when compared to Gods ultimate judgement. Only He can offer the everlasting reward for your decisions to accept or reject His standards.
You've just said that anyone declaring that they have studied the question and are living a "holy and sanctified" life is a Christian. Yet you made it very clear earlier that all people doing that are NOT Christian.
Which is correct?
Forgive me for any confusion I may have caused.
Please allow me to clarify...
A person who simply "declares" they are a Christian without making any effort to identify and abide by Gods standards is not a Christian. A person who is trying to live a “holy and sanctified life” without acknowledging Jesus Christ as justification for their sins is not a Christian.
A Christian is someone: a.) Who acknowledges and recognizes that we live in a sinful world and that God himself is the ultimate judge in what constitutes sinful behavior. b.) Who acknowledges Jesus Christ as the son of God (thus CHRISTian) and that through his death the penalty for sinful behavior has been paid. c.) Whose behavior after accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior will reflect a manifestation of their beliefs in action. Simply believing and testifying the merits of Jesus are not enough, you must turn away from sinful behavior and at the very least attempt to live a more sanctified and holy life.
Not sure religionists denying reality counts as "debatable." Sorry. More like "religious believers starting a fight as usual."
Any Christian will tell you, that it takes more than a self declaration to make one a Christian.
And to use the old example of Keith Green, " Going to church doesn't make you any more of a Christian , than going to McDonald's makes you a hamburger."
Jesus left His followers with TWO commandments. Neither one has to do with exterminating Jews, nor setting up an Arian Utopia.
What is the commandment about attacking proven science and anyone who does not believe the stuff you believe again? And the one about dishonestly representing known history?
Save me a seat by the fire.
You poor victim.
I love science. I love evolutionists.
I love atheists.
Not too thrilled by their beliefs, but, then again, they aren't too thrilled with mine either.
Makes for very interesting, and indeed entertaining discussions.
Sorry about not being at the fire. My trip was cancelled, when Jesus saved me.
Don't forget to take your marshmallows.
You love science?
See you in the fire.
Sure I do.
Don't care much for many of their conclusions, nor philosophy, but I can discriminate between right and wrong.
Sorry. My ticket to the fire was cancelled when Jesus saved me.
Don't forget the marshmallows!
Then you hate science because all there is conclusions based on evidence. Right and wrong? Oh - evolution is not possible.
Well done you! Yay! Saved no matter how un-christ like you behave.
Sure about that seat?
Sure am glad my salvation does not depend on my own righteousness, but His.
You ought to look into that. Pretty liberating, you know.
Yep! Sure about the fire. I have a ticket for you to avoid it, if you like.
Interesting. Presumably that is why Hitler felt he could do as he pleased. Doesn't matter what you do as long as you say the majick words you get saved. That certainly does explain a lot and rather contradicts all your previous statements about Christians being known by their actions. That is the problem with believing and not thinking.
No thanks - I prefer to stick with my moral code rather than doing as I please, saying majick words and being saved like Hitler did. Thanks for reminding me why this religion is so corrosive.
Save me that seat now.
Jesus saved you from his own punishment? Is that like the mafia saving you from a beating they were about to give you if you didn't hand over money? That kills me.
One huge difference, laughing boy, is that the mafia doesn't love you no matter what. God does love us, no matter what.
Ah - another thing about god you can imagine. Despite being nothing like us he has the same emotions. Of course - he throws people he loves in the fire or drowns them. See where Hitler got his Christianity from?
Wow, your arguments just get weaker by the post.
That is the only thing each and every Christian here has every offered, a declaration. We can easily see though, which Christians actually exhibit Christ like behaviors and which don't.
by Brittany Williams 4 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
by Stump Parrish 2 years ago
A reader of my local paper (The Spartanburg Herald-Journal www.goupstate.com) sent this comment to our opinion section "The Stroller": TAKE MY CHANCES': "A local reader" observes that as Christmas approaches there seems to be a proliferation of comments from people who tend to...
by Mark Knowles 8 years ago
It is my contention that the Christian religion (and specifically following Christ) is guaranteed to cause conflict, wars and ill will.As proof - I cite the last 1800 years - including the hubpages forums as evidence. Not only are these forums littered with arguments between atheists and believers,...
by Dwight Phoenix 2 years ago
What are the most annoying responses Christians give to questions atheists ask?I'm a christian and I think that it would be helpful in ministry, if Christians new a bit more about how atheists felt about a Christian's rebuttal
by Claire Evans 6 years ago
It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which is faith-based. How does it happen?
by Claire Evans 3 years ago
That's the typical Sam Harris argument. How does suffering negate God's existence? Maybe He's just watching. It doesn't mean He doesn't exist and for anyone to bring up suffering as proof of no God is indication of a logical fallacy.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|