Jump to content

Home

Hitler, The Nazi Party, and Christianity


True_Avery
 Share

Recommended Posts

How so? Either you love someone, or you don't.
I repeat: I don't see how loving god with all your soul prevents one from killing.

 

I'll add: "loving" someone is also open to interpretation. A stern father that frequently displines his child believes that he is behaving in a loving way. Someone with a different opinion of what it means to love a child might disagree. Which one is right? Whatever answer you come up with will be your opinion based on your beliefs about love.

 

By obeying His commandments. In this case, that would be "Thou shalt not kill".
Yet we have countless examples of god commanding his people to do just that. Usually against some "other" group. I don't know how to reconscile a source that says "kill" and "don't kill". If the source is to be obeyed without question, which of those things do you do? Clearly whatever mechanism you use to make that decision is outside of (and therefore superior to) the source itself. Feel free to point out where I'm wrong. ;)

 

Your neighbor is your fellow man, no matter who they are.
Yes, that certainly is one interpretation and it's one that I think is good to aspire to. However it is not the only one. It's subjective, therefore someone who says, "well my neighbor is someone who looks like me, acts like me, likes the things that I like, etc" is also valid. Coincidentally, this is also the one that people use to justify killing people who are "other".

 

The example that you're providing is one of human hypocrisy, which is a concept that I think we're both familiar with, and that neither of us likes. ;)
It very well may be hypocrisy, however that doesn't mean that this isn't how humans work. In-group bias is an undeniable, observable phenomenon.

 

Fixed. :D
Well, that's very cute, but as I keep pointing out, your Step 0 is extremely vague and open to interpretation. If someone felt that in order to love their neighbor, they needed to kill some group of infidels that were threatening their way of life, then it would seem that the act of killing itself would be adherence to the commandment rather than abandonment of it.

 

And all of this assumes that the commandments deserve our attention (an assumption that I don't share).

 

How do we know that these occurrences in the Bible aren't examples of the Israelites doing the same thing that Hitler and countless others have done in using God to justify genocide?
Well the bible is god's perfect word, no? I mean if you think you've found a good reason to second guess some of what's in the bible, who's to say that we shouldn't second guess all of what's in the bible. You have to come down on one side of this argument or find yourself guilty of special pleading. Sorry, man. :(

 

Kind of like what they're doing right now with the Palestinians. I'm not one of those that believes in the Bible's 100% infallibility. It was written by man and from man's point of view (specifically ancient man, as in "little better than caveman"), after all. ;)
Ok, so why follow it at all then? Every human endeavor has advanced significantly in the past 6,000 years except moral philosophy? ;)

 

Avery really, "Gott mit uns" really translates to God not us, instead of the misinterpretation “God with us.” :rolleyes:
Close. Come to find out, it actually means "Got mittens?". Apparently their hands got cold as they were invading Russia and this was their form of silent protest against their oppressive quartermasters.

 

I have a newsbusters link around here somewhere that confirms this. Hold on...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok, so why follow it at all then? Every human endeavor has advanced significantly in the past 6,000 years except moral philosophy? ;)

Because I have my reasons, born of personal, first-hand experience, that are very subjective and therefore useless to anyone else and, well, personal.

 

As far as morality goes, feel free to totally ignore Commandments 1-4 if you wish. 5-10 are still the best social rules to live by that I know of, and I don't believe that anyone could invent any that are better.

Edited by Q
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I have my reasons, born of personal, first-hand experience, that are very subjective and therefore useless to anyone else and, well, personal.
The ultimate conversation stopper, known as "personal faith".

 

Discussion over. You win.

 

@Edit: :lol: (coveting neighbor's ass)

Edited by Achilles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

@ thread

Since some seem to want to do anything they possibly can to tarnish christianity and I'd have a hard time disproving hitler was a christian in the way it has been presented... I guess my liege is that if Hitler was christian as he claimed, he's not MY kind of christian, never was and never will be; He's more of an insult to christianity. So it comes as understandable (I'd hope) that those who distance themselves will say he wasn't. Sure he used it to back his stance for world domination and there is lots that would support that hie was acting in accordance with christianity. However, as contradictions have been pointed out, he certainly also did a whole lot that was against christianity.

 

Not to mean that all Christians are like each other mind you. If you would like to take it as "clumping all together", then that is your prerogative.

 

Now where have I come across this before? Hmm, 2 ominously familiar turns of phrase, albeit variations thereof, and on a different subject. :smirk2: I don't know whether to be more flattered or creeped-out. Impressed at the very least. To great effect, you used it to make a rather pivotal distinction and to have allowances for exception.

 

Point taken. I'm not clumping myself in, but many would clump Hitler (and all other terrible things possible) with the generalization of anyone claiming to be such.

 

It is perfectly understandable why you wouldn't want to be anywhere near the same category as that man.

 

But, then again, we are all humans anyway.

 

It's more of, this town...nay PLANET ain't big enough for the two of us when it involves any christian (or just plain human being, for that matter) and Hitler.

As per individual it is a question whether the primary motivator was christiantiy or humanity...or a mix of both... Latter-most I'd say.

 

@ Qliv: I wish I'd had those words, before. It's more how you live than what you follow. Well said.

 

To paraphrase Web Rider: "Since there is no original anymore, there kind of doesn't leave much option BUT to go on interpretation." ---or something like that. (Thanks)

 

That isn't necessarily to say one can rightly just make whatever of it, though. Or so I gather--and very much agree with.

 

Is hitler not an example of that? Bending it to his will?

To retort: "You know that you have shaped god in your own image when god hates all the same people that you do." --unknown pastor, 2007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My definition of a Christian is someone that has taken Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Since that is something that cannot be verified beyond the word of that person, I personally believe anyone that proclaims himself/herself as a Christian is a Christian.

 

This pretty much sums up my thinking on the matter perfectly. Unless we see that person later that day praying in a mosque or at a local satanist bbq, the only thing we have to go on is what the individual says about their beliefs.

 

 

Actually, mimartin, you need only examine a person's actions to see to what degree they jive with their words. It's easy to say you're something, though it might be harder to prove it. Though ach hints at that in his reply, you could just as easily use someone's words to demonstrate that their claims are false/empty as well with some well placed questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, mimartin, you need only examine a person's actions to see to what degree they jive with their words. It's easy to say you're something, though it might be harder to prove it. Though ach hints at that in his reply, you could just as easily use someone's words to demonstrate that their claims are false/empty as well with some well placed questions.

 

Just requote my posts since it's obvious they haven't even looked them over. Either that or they are pretending that the evidence to the contrary does not exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now where have I come across this before? Hmm, 2 ominously familiar turns of phrase, albeit variations thereof, and on a different subject. I don't know whether to be more flattered or creeped-out. Impressed at the very least. To great effect, you used it to make a rather pivotal distinction and to have allowances for exception.

Thanks?

 

You'll have to forgive me as I'm a little lost on this... compliment? I dunno.

 

Since some seem to want to do anything they possibly can to tarnish christianity and I'd have a hard time disproving hitler was a christian in the way it has been presented... I guess my liege is that if Hitler was christian as he claimed, he's not MY kind of christian, never was and never will be; He's more of an insult to christianity. So it comes as understandable (I'd hope) that those who distance themselves will say he wasn't. Sure he used it to back his stance for world domination and there is lots that would support that hie was acting in accordance with christianity. However, as contradictions have been pointed out, he certainly also did a whole lot that was against christianity.

That pretty much sums up my point as far as the thread goes.

 

Just requote my posts since it's obvious they haven't even looked them over.

I looked over them! *sad eyes*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just requote my posts since it's obvious they haven't even looked them over. Either that or they are pretending that the evidence to the contrary does not exist.

 

Why do you think I usually repeat the same points at times, because often it only sinks on on the third or forth time.

 

 

The evidence you presented seems to indicate that Hitler and the Nazis were a bunch of Atheists and not Christians, and while certain Atheists here love to bash Christianity or anyone else whom is religious for that matter, I think you kinda proved that the ones preaching that Christians are intolerant should look in the mirror.

 

Fact is there were many Christians that helped people escape from the Nazis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think I usually repeat the same points at times, because often it only sinks on on the third or forth time.

 

 

The evidence you presented seems to indicate that Hitler and the Nazis were a bunch of Atheists and not Christians, and while certain Atheists here love to bash Christianity or anyone else whom is religious for that matter, I think you kinda proved that the ones preaching that Christians are intolerant should look in the mirror.

 

Fact is there were many Christians that helped people escape from the Nazis.

 

Actually to be honest, it points more to his being an Agnostic rather than Christian. Nowhere does he say that God does not/may not exist. He speaks highly of God while talking negatively about the religious.

 

I know it can be confusing since almost everything I quoted could easily have been confused for quotes of Achilles posts, but I still think he was an Agnostic at best. Of course I just considder Hitler a psychotic f***er that would use whatever was available to control the population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually to be honest, it points more to his being an Agnostic rather than Christian. Nowhere does he say that God does not/may not exist. He speaks highly of God while talking negatively about the religious.

 

Well he thought of the Germans as the master race, so I don't see where the idea that he believed in God comes from. Remember he had to be careful because if he started trashing God in his speeches and it got out that might have eroded some of his support and get some people to see past is charisma.

 

I know it can be confusing since almost everything I quoted could easily have been confused for quotes of Achilles posts, but I still think he was an Agnostic at best. Of course I just considder Hitler a psychotic f***er that would use whatever was available to control the population.

 

I would consider Hitler to be a psychotic egomaniac, that probably thought of himself as God or with some other delusional ego trip.

 

Führer is "leader" or "guide" in the German language, derived from the verb führen "to lead". In standard German it is pronounced [ˈfyːʁɐ], but in English it is usually pronounced /ˈfjʊərɚ/. It can be spelled Fuehrer or Fuhrer in languages where the ü-umlaut is not used. In German only Fuehrer may serve as a substitute in cases where no umlauts are available.
--wikipedia.org
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think I usually repeat the same points at times, because often it only sinks on on the third or forth time.

 

 

The evidence you presented seems to indicate that Hitler and the Nazis were a bunch of Atheists and not Christians, and while certain Atheists here love to bash Christianity or anyone else whom is religious for that matter, I think you kinda proved that the ones preaching that Christians are intolerant should look in the mirror.

 

There was no evidence that Hitler was an atheist presented in this thread, perhaps it needs to be repeated a third or fourth time?

To say that people in this thread are bashing Christianity and 'preaching that Christians are intolerant' is grossly misrepresenting what this thread is about. Hitler was an evil man. Hitler was a Christian. What does this say about every other Christian? Absolutely nothing. This is not intolerance against Christianity.

Fact is there were many Christians that helped people escape from the Nazis.

 

So there were good Christians and bad Christians in WWII. Gee, it's almost as if their belief system didn't really matter to wether or not they were good persons.

Well he thought of the Germans as the master race, so I don't see where the idea that he believed in God comes from. Remember he had to be careful because if he started trashing God in his speeches and it got out that might have eroded some of his support and get some people to see past is charisma.

The idea that Germans are the master race is not inherently incompatible with Christianity. Unless I missed the verse that said 'Germans are not the master race'.

Also, if Hitler had to appeal to Christians to gain support, then does this not indicate that regardless of Hitler's beliefs, at least many of his followers were Christians? So were all the nazi's fake Christians, only pretending to be Christian for each other because they believed all the others to be Christian?

 

Lastly, some grammar pet peeves. Atheist should not be capitalised unless it is at the beginning of a sentence and you should have used 'who' rather than 'whom'. You make this mistake a lot and it irks me every time.

 

EDIT: I'd like to add that saying 'Hitler didn't act like a true Christian' or variations thereof are just examples of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Aside from that there is a lot of debate about what constitutes 'true' Christianity (especially among Christians) so this is obviously not a definition of 'Christian' we can work with.

Edited by Doomie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no evidence that Hitler was an atheist presented in this thread, perhaps it needs to be repeated a third or fourth time?

To say that people in this thread are bashing Christianity and 'preaching that Christians are intolerant' is grossly misrepresenting what this thread is about. Hitler was an evil man. Hitler was a Christian. What does this say about every other Christian? Absolutely nothing. This is not intolerance against Christianity.

 

 

So there were good Christians and bad Christians in WWII. Gee, it's almost as if their belief system didn't really matter to wether or not they were good persons.

 

The idea that Germans are the master race is not inherently incompatible with Christianity. Unless I missed the verse that said 'Germans are not the master race'.

Also, if Hitler had to appeal to Christians to gain support, then does this not indicate that regardless of Hitler's beliefs, at least many of his followers were Christians? So were all the nazi's fake Christians, only pretending to be Christian for each other because they believed all the others to be Christian?

 

EDIT: I'd like to add that saying 'Hitler didn't act like a true Christian' or variations thereof are just examples of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Aside from that there is a lot of debate about what constitutes 'true' Christianity (especially among Christians) so this is obviously not a definition of 'Christian' we can work with.

 

Actually I did make a rather clear argument for Hitler NOT being a Christian. The SS had most of it's followers LEAVING the church. The book "Table Talk" makes it quite clear that while being publicly Christian, he did not like Christianity. As I said. At best we can make him out to be an Agnostic that used the church to keep the citezens from banding together to fight him. Divide and conquer if you will. Add to that keeping them in fear would also be quite handy.

 

Remember that the majority of people in Germany were not actually members of the National Socialist party. The majority of the soldiers fighting for Germany had no idea what was going on at the camps. It is very easy to see how he would want to keep the men fighting on the front lines. So yeah, him wanting to keep them thinking he was a good Christian makes perfect sense.

 

Remember he was a public figure. Any time he said anything in public it was repeated through the ranks of the civilian and military populations. If he uttered that he was against Christianity those troops might have deserted. This wouldn't be a problem for his top aides who thought of him at a higher rank than Christianity. So if he utters negative things towards Christianity in private with them, it is more acceptable.

 

Letters, recordings and phone calls.. they can be intercepted. So he has to be careful there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I did make a rather clear argument for Hitler NOT being a Christian. The SS had most of it's followers LEAVING the church. The book "Table Talk" makes it quite clear that while being publicly Christian, he did not like Christianity. As I said. At best we can make him out to be an Agnostic that used the church to keep the citezens from banding together to fight him. Divide and conquer if you will. Add to that keeping them in fear would also be quite handy.

 

Just because he did not like Christianity as an organised religion that does not mean he did not believe in Jesus and the Christian God. Besides it has been pointed out that 'Table Talk' is not the most reliable of sources.

 

I think it is entirely possible that Hitler *did* merely pretend to be Christian to be well-liked amongst the Christian populace. I did not mean to imply that Hitler was, without a doubt, Christian. I just wanted to point out that some of the arguments presented here cannot be used to prove Hitler was not a Christian, and also that saying Hitler is a Christian is not the same as bashing Christianity.

 

Remember that the majority of people in Germany were not actually members of the National Socialist party. The majority of the soldiers fighting for Germany had no idea what was going on at the camps. It is very easy to see how he would want to keep the men fighting on the front lines. So yeah, him wanting to keep them thinking he was a good Christian makes perfect sense.

 

Remember he was a public figure. Any time he said anything in public it was repeated through the ranks of the civilian and military populations. If he uttered that he was against Christianity those troops might have deserted. This wouldn't be a problem for his top aides who thought of him at a higher rank than Christianity. So if he utters negative things towards Christianity in private with them, it is more acceptable.

 

Letters, recordings and phone calls.. they can be intercepted. So he has to be careful there.

 

True, it makes sense... but it's not proof either way. If we assume Hitler to be a Christian, it would still make sense for him to say those things.

Regarding Hitler's followers: They may not have known about the full extent of the horrors perpetrated by the nazi regime, but surely they must have agreed with some of Hitler's nazistic views, which he also spoke of in public and during speeches. So if we assume that Hitler said what the people wanted to hear, his followers were both Christians and nazis, or they would have disagreed with him and he would not have had the following he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing it out that I also argued that Table Talk was substantiated by Speer.

 

Do you have another source of his private conversations that did not include members of the Clergy. Remember that Hitler also attacked Christian institutions that disagreed with Nazi philosophy. Again, it points more to the church being used to keep the followers in line rather than actually being religious. (The other document I provided). So perhaps you can come up with something that helps us get a glimpse into his non-private life. Perhaps some bit of information that counters Table Talk. Again remember it has to meet the standards of non-public(as that would scare away the general population), personal views.

 

Just an additional note. I am NOT Christian. I'm actually Agnostic. I have basically been arguing that Hitler was more closely associated with my own religion(technically speaking). Fortunately for me I disassociate his actions from the religion. As he's just a psychotic nutjob, which comes in all flavors.

Edited by Tommycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garfield seems to not get the point of this thread.

 

No, I get the purpose of this thread, it isn't difficult to figure out when one of the key people on this board that like to bash Christians and people of faith starts this thread trying to tie Hitler to Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thread is called "Hitler, The Nazi Party, and Christianity" and since I have no further arguments regarding Hitler's personal beliefs I thought I'd focus on the latter two parts of the thread title. It is extremely improbable that there was not at least one nazi who held Christian beliefs. Afterall, if they agreed with the public image of nazism displayed by Hitler, then they must have held these beliefs even if Hitler himself did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thread is called "Hitler, The Nazi Party, and Christianity" and since I have no further arguments regarding Hitler's personal beliefs I thought I'd focus on the latter two parts of the thread title. It is extremely improbable that there was not at least one nazi who held Christian beliefs. Afterall, if they agreed with the public image of nazism displayed by Hitler, then they must have held these beliefs even if Hitler himself did not.

 

To throw that right back, it is extremely improbable that there was not at least one Atheist that a Nazi...

 

 

Seriously, this thread is nothing more than a typical smearfest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To throw that right back, it is extremely improbable that there was not at least one Atheist that a Nazi...

 

 

Seriously, this thread is nothing more than a typical smearfest.

 

Not at all (as I explained earlier). I have no qualms admitting that there were atheistic nazis (although it seems unlikely, because as we can see nazi Germany was drenched in Christian symbolism). It's just that some people cannot admit that there were Christians amongst a group of people generally considered to have been the most evil people on Earth.

 

Which, I repeat, says nothing about Christianity as a whole, except perhaps that being a Christian does not automatically make you perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all (as I explained earlier). I have no qualms admitting that there were atheistic nazis (although it seems unlikely, because as we can see nazi Germany was drenched in Christian symbolism). It's just that some people cannot admit that there were Christians amongst a group of people generally considered to have been the most evil people on Earth.

 

They used symbolism to try trick individuals into following them, and also give people the impression that their actions were condoned by the church...

 

Which, I repeat, says nothing about Christianity as a whole, except perhaps that being a Christian does not automatically make you perfect.

 

And I'll throw that right back and say being an Atheist doesn't make one superior to anyone else. Seriously if you think about it though, Nazism does more closely resemble Darwinistic views that only the strong survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They used symbolism to try trick individuals into following them, and also give people the impression that their actions were condoned by the church...

And if people were tricked by this, and were under the impression that the nazis were a Christian party, do you think the atheists among the people would have joined? No, by defining their party as a Christian party the nazis ensured mainly Christian followers, regardless of wether or not they were Christians themselves.

 

And I'll throw that right back and say being an Atheist doesn't make one superior to anyone else. Seriously if you think about it though, Nazism does more closely resemble Darwinistic views that only the strong survive.

 

I did not claim to be perfect, I merely claimed that others aren't perfect either.

'Only the strong survive' is a misrepresentation of 'survival of the fittest' and if you're trying to link nazism and atheism through this, you should know that Darwinism and atheism aren't synonymous at all.

Furthermore it was clear from the first post in this thread that Hitler's idea of a master race was not influenced by Darwinism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if people were tricked by this, and were under the impression that the nazis were a Christian party, do you think the atheists among the people would have joined? No, by defining their party as a Christian party the nazis ensured mainly Christian followers, regardless of wether or not they were Christians themselves.

 

Didn't they also outlaw the other political parties though?

 

 

I did not claim to be perfect, I merely claimed that others aren't perfect either.

'Only the strong survive' is a misrepresentation of 'survival of the fittest' and if you're trying to link nazism and atheism through this, you should know that Darwinism and atheism aren't synonymous at all.

Furthermore it was clear from the first post in this thread that Hitler's idea of a master race was not influenced by Darwinism.

 

See the Olympic Games that Hitler hosted in Germany he and the Nazi Party were out to prove that Germans were stronger, faster, smarter than people from other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...