Was Hitler a Christian?
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Next
GerryHurt @ Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:57 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Well, then atheists have to accept responsibility for atrocities commited by communists, against all people of faith. This is exactly the same as what you accuse Christianity of. You claim Hitler was motivated by his Christian upbringing. So to were the communist pogroms against relious people, motivated by the atheism espoused by this very same system. Atheism was what motivated communists to murder, toture and incarcerate people of faith.
Atheism has to accept it culpability in the horrors of mutiple holocausts
Atheism has to accept it culpability in the horrors of mutiple holocausts
Stalin killed for political reasons. Hitler killed the jews based on his hatred of the jews and that came from religous influences.
$1:
I'll ask again, where is the evidence calling for anti semitism?
Are you saying that there was no anti-semetism surrounding the christian faith? Are you saying that no christian held anti-semetic views?
Are you just trying to find where in the bible it says "kill jews"?
Lets see.
genesis 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
No, that was just the bible saying that their god wanted a human sacrifice.
Exodus perhaps?
$1:
# If thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.--4:23
# For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast.--12:12
# At midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.--12:29
# The LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast.--13:15
# For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast.--12:12
# At midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.--12:29
# The LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast.--13:15
Perhaps they were jsut following your gods example.
Leviticus?
# For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death.--20:9
# And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death.--20:12
# If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.--20:13
# If a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they.--20:14
# If a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.--20:15
# If a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.--20:16
# A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.--20:27
# And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.--21:9
Lots O killing in there.
I could go on but time is finite.
Whether or not the bible was used is irrelevant. The fact of anti-semetism held by christians and taught buy christians is evident.
Christian churches were the place where such things were taught.
You do realize, moron, that the bible verses that you have quoted above are from the OLD Testament which is the Jewish "bible". Leviticus is ALL Jewish Laws. The verse about Abraham and his son is only PART of the story and leads one to believe that God wanted him to kill his son. This is not true and if you had posted the entire story you and everyone else would see that that is not true. So how about you try and find something else to support your bullshit and lies.
hwacker @ Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:00 pm
Hrmm this should be good 
BartSimpson @ Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:18 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
The school chaplain at my son's school agrees wholeheartedly with this. He's a Dominican priest. He feels that the Church demanded celibacy because no heirs meant a dead priest, bishop or cardinal's property went to the church rather than his children.
That would be about right.
Not to trash on the Catholics, mind you, but they did forbid the Bible to the laity until the early to mid 20th century (this was codified in the Council of Toulouse 1229 AD - Canon 14) and this was due to the fact that the laity would certainly question rules such as these that are not supported by Scripture.
Thinking about it, that's precisely what Martin Luther did, isn't it?
BartSimpson @ Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:19 pm
hwacker hwacker:
Bart Bart Bart, why would you bring this up ?
You know Derby, when pushed brings this up all the time.
This is going to be one of those 20k threads.
You know Derby, when pushed brings this up all the time.
This is going to be one of those 20k threads.
This subject was hijacking another thread and needed a place of its own. Just being courteous, is all.
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:22 pm
he was a priest. The Church burned the athars and even those who translated the Bible into English or any other local language (not that most of the laity could read at the time)
BartSimpson @ Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:22 pm
And to quote a very wise man, this Gerry vs Derby thing is kinda like Freddy vs Jason.
![[popcorn]](./images/smilies/popcorn.gif "Eating Popcorn")
And I find myself rooting for Gerry on principle and for Derby on friendship.
BartSimpson @ Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:26 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
he was a priest. The Church burned the athars and even those who translated the Bible into English or any other local language (not that most of the laity could read at the time)
Ignorance (of the masses) is bliss.
I suppose the attitude of the early Popes is also to be found in latter day public education.
Can't have the kids learning too much or they'll start questioning the Church of Socialism and its secular humanist clergy.
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:39 pm
$1:
Felix Kersten, Himmler's confidante, found a variety of religious books in Himmler's library, and Himmler explained to him " I am to prepare a new Nazi religion. I am to draft the new Bible, the Bible of the faith.... The Fuhrer has decided that, after the victory of the Third Reich, he will abolish Christianity throughout Great Germany, and establish the faith on its ruins. The latter will preserve the idea of God, but it will be very vague and indistinct. The Fuhrer will replace Christ as the savior of humanity. Thus, millions and millions of people will say only Hitler's name in their prayers, and a hundred years from now nothing will be known but the new religion, which will endure for centuries."
I mentioned previously that they began this with the SS. Military and civil rituals that contained references to God were replaced with the name of the Fuhrer. The SS breeding farms had children saying prayers to the Fuhrer and refering to him a s their saviour.
$1:
We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.
A hitler Youth marching song
$1:
Parents were pressured to take their children out of religious schools. When the Church organized voluntary out-of-hours religious classes, the Nazi government responded by banning state-employed teachers from taking part. The Crucifix symbol was even at one point banned from classrooms in one particular jurisdiction, Oldenburg, in 1936, but the measure met with fierce public resistance and was rescinded. Hitler remained conscious of the affection for the Church felt in some quarters of Germany, particularly Bavaria. Later on, though, a wartime metal shortage was used as the excuse for melting church bells (Richard Grunberger, The Twelve Year Reich, Henry Holt, Henry Holt, 1979 and Richard Grunberger, A Social History of the Third Reich, Penguin, 1991).
Other Nazi leaders viewed the Positive Christianity, a twisted religious belief (that claimed Christ was an Aryan who battled the evils of Judaism) espoused by the Nazi party as merely a transitional phase.
$1:
For Rosenberg, Positive Christianity was a transitional ideology that would pave the way to the revival of fully Aryan religions.
Jakob Hauer, leader of the German Faith Movement,
$1:
adopted a more thoroughly Aryanized form of the ideology, claiming to represent the essence of the "protestant" spirit by mixing aspects of Christianity with ideas derived from "Aryan" religions such as Vedic Hinduism. They attempted to separate Nazi officials from church affiliations, banning nativity plays and calling for an end to daily prayers in schools.
wikipedia
And before the resident historian jumps all over my use of wikipedia, it's not like I have a lot of opportunity to consult superior sources, being stuck here.
Biblical_Christian @ Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:57 pm
I think the Pope wanted the Holy Land, I think he orchestrated the whole houlacost. Please quit calling Catholics christians, they are not!
stratos @ Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:03 am
$1:
I think the Pope wanted the Holy Land, I think he orchestrated the whole houlacost. Please quit calling Catholics christians, they are not!
ShepherdsDog @ Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:48 am
Biblical_Christian Biblical_Christian:
I think the Pope wanted the Holy Land, I think he orchestrated the whole houlacost. Please quit calling Catholics christians, they are not!
I'm including your friends
DerbyX @ Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:23 pm
As previously stated the argument against Hitler's christianity falls into 2 categories:
1) Hitler lied about all his beliefs.
2) Hitler couldn't have been a christian because he wasn't a moral person and all christians are moral.
Shep adds a red-herring fallacy by even mentioning Atheism so I'll deal with that first.
Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). Nothing more. It has no moral, political, or supernatural conditions, strictures, or commands. Theism is the belief in god(s). Same thing. Its just a simple statement of belief.
Below that are levels of beliefs called religions which include strictures, conditions, commandments, whatever. Humanism, agnostism, christianity, muslim, wiccan, buddhist, etc. These are more then just simple beliefs. They attach more specific levels of belief and attempt to have that belief form a way of life. Some are just spiritual while some take a far more active role in political makeup. Its a means of control.
Now political beliefs such as marxism, communism, fascism, capitalism, parlimentarianism, may embrace religious ideology for whatever reason. Usually this reason is control. Stalin didn't attack the faith but the control of the corresponding religion. He did this in the name of maxism and communism because those political ideolgies require absolute power to the state and the power and influence held by religion was a threat. Ditto Hitler. He did attack churches but he didn't attack the faith or belief system. He wanted control over the church. So did kings before him. Can't get a divorce? Simply take over the church and shape it to what you want. Consequently catholics have been fighting protestants ever since and although both are attacking "the church" or each others organized religions neither are attacking the faith, ie belief in JC & his god.
Hitler attacked the faith of judaism. He didn't just want to control them or remold their faith in a germanic flavour. He wanted them destroyed because (among other things) he felt they were the killers of JC and racially seperate and inferior. That belief was part of christian churchs and was part of European society during that time period. A cop-out defence that the bible doesn't explicitly say "kill jews" is no defence against the reality that those calling themselves christians and following a christian oriented faith held anti-semetic beliefs.
This leads into argument #1 from above, Hitler lied.
Nothing less then an emotional argument with no basis in fact and without a shred of proof.
$1:
But just for the sake of argument, lets pretend that Hitler really did pretend his Christianity; that his sole aim went to politically winning over German Christians so that he could gain their confidence. How in the world does that improve your argument in protecting Christianity from Hitler? If that proved the case, then who should get the blame, Hitler or the gullible Christian German citizens who believed him? And what does that say for the integrity of Christianity if the most Christianized country in the world could not distinguish a member of their own belief system? Think about it. If the most pious Christians and clergymen could not tell if Hitler practiced false or "real" Christianity, then how in the world could anyone tell? I submit that the only way to tell comes from the very words from those who make the claim. Indeed, this constitutes the very flaw of any religion because there never has existed a testable way to determine the truthfulness of a belief in the supernatural. And if you cannot tell by the words of your fellow Christians, then anyone with minimal acting talent can deceive anyone, including monks, bishops, or popes. In fact, monks, bishops and popes themselves, could fall prey to falsehood. I submit to you that a false Christian and a real Christian makes absolutely no difference. Why? Because if I have it right (and I think I do) then Christianity never represented reality, thus an honest believing Christian and a dishonest believing Christian fall on equal turf: they both have it wrong, and they both practice falsehoods!
The only evidence we have, or could ever have, about people who call themselves Christian comes from the very confession of those making the claim. And since Hitler makes his claim to Christianity abundantly and clearly, we can only rely on his claim, regardless of whether he actually believed in Christ or not. False Christianity has as just much validity as any claim to Christianity, even if you could prove dishonesty.
But regardless of how you view a person's claim to their religion, to say Hitler used Christianity only for political forces has absolutely no historical basis to back it up. To simply rely on belief or opinion says absolutely nothing about historical fact.
The only evidence we have, or could ever have, about people who call themselves Christian comes from the very confession of those making the claim. And since Hitler makes his claim to Christianity abundantly and clearly, we can only rely on his claim, regardless of whether he actually believed in Christ or not. False Christianity has as just much validity as any claim to Christianity, even if you could prove dishonesty.
But regardless of how you view a person's claim to their religion, to say Hitler used Christianity only for political forces has absolutely no historical basis to back it up. To simply rely on belief or opinion says absolutely nothing about historical fact.
Even if you absolutely categorically "prove" Hitler was lying and in fact didn't believe a word about christianity you are still left with the inescable fact that he was not alone in his guilt. Where all the nazi's "lying". Did the entire German population throw away their beliefs for Hitler. The fact is that the horrors of the holocaust where happening and "christians" were participating in it or at the very least turning a blind eye to it. That doesn't mean they all were. Some christians fought against it. So what. So did Atheists. That doesn't excuse or erase the fact that others of their faith were on the opposite side nor does it erase the fact of anti-semetism surrounding religious groups, churchs, and institutions calling themselves christian.
This segways into argument #2. The 2nd worst circular argument of them all (the worst being the creationist one).
Hitler wasn't a christian because he wasn't a moral person and all christians are moral. Why intelligent people cannot see the failure in logic behind this let alone the disturbing implications is simply beyond me.
Then again they all seem to be invalidating the christianity of others. Bart's a catholic and a christian. biblical_christian says Bart isn't a christian because he's a catholic. Shep has problems with the catholic church (I believe I heard Orange men) but thats politically based and not theologially based. The catholics seem to think they and their pope are the "official" spokesmen for all of christianity and Lily is on record saying that the mormons and jehova witness are little more then cults and aren't true christians either. Thats to say nothing about mennonites, amish, latvian orthodox, luteranism, baptists, adventists, ..........
Each group calls themselves "christian". Each group says they are worshipping as "their" god intended. What makes "them" christian. What makes "you" christian.
We've heard alot about "following the teachings of JC". Sounds good until you realize that they all think they are the only ones doing just that. "Jesus christ church of latter day saints" are essentially mormons and previously Lily has said they aren't "true christians" and compared them to a cult (which they pretty much are). They have his name right in their title. Think they don't believe they are following JC's teachings? They think they do. Do you think Hitler didn't believe he was also?.
The logic seems almost inescapable that no-one is a christian because somebody, somewhere, doesn't think they are. Hitler thought he was a christian. His friends did. High ranking clergy did.
Now does ones actions invalidate ones christianity. They would have you believe so.
"A christian follows the teachings of JC". Really? Where does it say that?
Where does it say that a "christian" is defined as "one who follows the teachings of JC"?
Dose it say it in the bible? Find the verse for me please. Perhaps you'll quote exodus.
(hey Gerry, thats old testament too!)
So what? Where does it say "a christian is defined as ......." anywhere in the bible?
"But by following the bible you are following the teachings of JC"......
Without getting into another massive debate about how you have to pick and choose from the bible in order to lead a good life from it and ignoring all of gerry's OT bad stuff (but keeping the good stuff) I'll just point this out.
If the bible is "the teachings of JC" and nowhere in the bible does it actually say "a christian is defined as ......" and christians the world over follow the bible to differing degrees by picking and choosing what to follow ...... Explain this.
$1:
Although some might counter that Hitler's admission to Christianity, by itself, does not make one a Christian, how else can an individual convey to another his religion except from their own confession? One of the tenants of Christian belief, indeed the definition of a Christian, comes from the Pauline epistiles in regards to faith in Jesus:
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
-Galatians 2:16
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
-Romans 3:26-28
Paul, by declaring faith in Jesus over law, effectively separated Christianity from Judaism. It came from these Pauline declarations that first defined Christianity. Belief in Jesus serves as the only requirement for membership into the Christian community. Christianity does not require adhering to Old Testament laws or membership to any Church or abstaining from evil deeds. One need only have faith in Jesus for its justification, period.
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
-Galatians 2:16
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
-Romans 3:26-28
Paul, by declaring faith in Jesus over law, effectively separated Christianity from Judaism. It came from these Pauline declarations that first defined Christianity. Belief in Jesus serves as the only requirement for membership into the Christian community. Christianity does not require adhering to Old Testament laws or membership to any Church or abstaining from evil deeds. One need only have faith in Jesus for its justification, period.
What more needs to be said.
Clogeroo @ Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:29 pm
Hitler could have been a Christian or may have considered himself one but he wasn't a true Christian. Most people aren’t anyway (including me). Just looking at one element Christians are not supposed to go to war.
Clogeroo @ Sat Jun 16, 2007 12:31 pm
$1:
"If the world can let a million blacks be killed I doubt they are going to care if we killed a million rebelling Indians." Clogeroo
I just noticed I'm actually your signature?
Cool. 
GerryHurt @ Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:59 pm
Biblical_Christian Biblical_Christian:
I think the Pope wanted the Holy Land, I think he orchestrated the whole houlacost. Please quit calling Catholics christians, they are not!
The Roman Catholic Church is the original Church of Jesus Christ started by Saint Peter, one of Christs original apostles. ALL Chrstian sects are off shoots of the original Catholic Church, if you can prove otherwise, do so. If not, then shut the fuck up.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Next