Jump to content

Home

Hitler, The Nazi Party, and Christianity


True_Avery
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Wait. So you see the atheists as being unlikely to be a part of it? As mentioned earlier, Hitler ORDERED his top men to remain a part of the church BECAUSE MOST of the SS was LEAVING the church.

 

Evolution is more of an atheistic view than it is Christian even today. Let alone back in the 40's. The idea of breeding in more pure beings is closer to eugenics(actually it is eugenics) and that smacks of evolutionary theory far more than of religion. So fine, Christians get the common man and soldiers, but atheists get the ones doing experiments on people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks?

 

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

Just that what I highlighted I've used numerous times (varied contexts and subjects) in passing on other threads and perhaps when we've talked one-on-one. The "clumping together" and "if you wanna take it that way it's your prerogative".

 

Not that I hold copyrights to it or anything. ;)ZOMG--PLAGARISM! He's got a pitchfork--RUN!!!

 

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

 

Uhh, glad I could help...even inadvertently? I just flat disavow Hitler as a christian and a human being is all.

 

That doesn't surprise you, does it? ;)

 

To which I reply and I quote:

Uhh, no.

 

 

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.

 

Ah, appealing to the "everyman", you think? You raise an excellent point.

With enough conviction of character, it would seem that he had a certain talent for for appealing to people. What a better way than this to make him seem down-to-earth. Like just another one of the guys.

 

I gather this rather palpable behavior of a leader can be defined as "A man amongst your troops." --Miyamoto Musashi. (I just can't seem to find it's exact wording in the book of five rings right this moment.)

 

Also relevant:

1) the morality of the project is essential to the outcome of the project. You must know what it is you wish to accomplish and why. Be firm in your resolve and certain that your goals and captains agree with your desires and can be depended upon to take the matter to the final point. Do they believe strongly enough in your ideal to sacrifice everything that has to be sacrificed for the accomplishment of your goal? Do they believe in you as a leader? Do YOU believe in yourself as a leader? If everything is balanced in your favor then proceed to the next step. If not, rethink your attitudes and desires.

From Sun Tzu: The Art Of War the definitive interpretation of Sun Tzu's classic book of strategy , Ch1 or "Book 1" p.4-5. Stephen F. Kaufman, Hanshi 10th Dan. Tuttle Publishing, 1996.

 

I believe that Hitler understood this lesson all too well and used it to great (but terrible) effect. I have nothing to prove it except how history played out. When you come out of the ivory tower, and are seen amongst your men, they get the sense you are one of them; as opposed to one whose placed himself above his men. "Power trip".

 

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.

 

There are differing types of crazy and insanity and even those two are not one and the same, I think.

 

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.

 

There are some who will use it that way to deprecate it, even if it isn't that way as you've pointed out.

 

Hitler was Hitler. Using anything and everything is entirely possible as well.

 

 

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'.
It doesn't mesh 100% the other way either.

 

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.
Noted.

 

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.
Then I guess it was a battle for who reigns supreme and he lost.

 

Last I checked, disavowing is part of freethinking. FTR I've heard everything you've said. Though your sentiment wasn't at me specifically. Differing sides of the same coin.

 

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.
To acknowledge your point: Not everyone conflates Hitler with Christianity, just those who want badly to put it down. I believe this to be the "dead horse" the side opposite you is beating. With all due respect, however, it is rather disconcerting to those who would wish to distance themselves from Hitler.

 

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.
Maybe, maybe not; could have worked even for hitler to just make believe like it. If you can sell it, they can buy it.

 

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.
Which I've insinuated this whole time. I believe I simply covered it above differently, in response following up Tommycat's post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one wants to talk about how much Hitler admired Islam. Someone might get offended by that. It's also much safer to criticize Christianity.

 

The fact is, Hitler felt that Christianity needed some spicing up by creating 'Positive Christianity'. As a former Christian I couldn't care less whether someone thinks that Hitler was a practicing, believing and deeply faithful Christian. I simply disagree because of the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary. Did Christianity have some impact on Hitler's life? Sure. But really? To each his own I guess. Perhaps it's a knee jerk reaction to the fact that Stalin was an outspoken atheist.

 

"You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness….” (A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp. 142-143)

 

grand_mufti1.jpg

Hitler and the Grand Mufti talking smack about Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Interesting. Former Christian?

 

Islam, you say? Hmm.

 

The religion of the Japanese? I don't think bhuddism is necessarily religious faith in the same way as is christianity, judaism, or islam. I've been lead to believe that there may have been both christian and muslim practitioners of bhuddism. I'm going off of memory (or lack thereof) in one of the texts I've read either about shaolin kung fu or the samurai.

 

I welcome your sentiment as an impartial party. Hard to find people like you around here. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait. So you see the atheists as being unlikely to be a part of it? As mentioned earlier, Hitler ORDERED his top men to remain a part of the church BECAUSE MOST of the SS was LEAVING the church.

Which may just be because they disliked organised religion rather than Christianity as a whole. Also, yes, I do find it unlikely for a political party that markets itself to the public as Christian to gain much support from atheists. It is possible that those who were in the party from the beginning were atheists but I haven't really seen any proof on that either way.

 

Evolution is more of an atheistic view than it is Christian even today. Let alone back in the 40's.

Actually I thought the Christian opposition to the theory of evolution came primarily from the Christian fundamentalist movement, which is even today a largely American and protestant movement. Germany is historically catholic, if I'm not mistaken (Someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of these).

If someone has any sources though on what the common German man of the 1930s and '40s thought of evolution (or if they knew about it at all) we could probably settle this matter.

The idea of breeding in more pure beings is closer to eugenics(actually it is eugenics) and that smacks of evolutionary theory far more than of religion.

But as far as I can tell from the sources provided in the first post Hitler did not base his ideas on the theory of evolution. Even if he had, he had some really warped view on the theory of evolution. He could have also had an extremely warped view on Christianity that inspired him to do what he did, or maybe just a warped view on humanity. Whatever he thought, it was wrong, but that doesn't say anything about where and what he got it from.

And as I said they're not even mutually exclusive; It is possible to be a Christian and believe in eugenics.

 

So fine, Christians get the common man and soldiers, but atheists get the ones doing experiments on people.

 

Does one 'side' have to be more evil than the other? In the end they were all nazis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which may just be because they disliked organised religion rather than Christianity as a whole. Also, yes, I do find it unlikely for a political party that markets itself to the public as Christian to gain much support from atheists. It is possible that those who were in the party from the beginning were atheists but I haven't really seen any proof on that either way.

 

 

Actually I thought the Christian opposition to the theory of evolution came primarily from the Christian fundamentalist movement, which is even today a largely American and protestant movement. Germany is historically catholic, if I'm not mistaken (Someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of these).

If someone has any sources though on what the common German man of the 1930s and '40s thought of evolution (or if they knew about it at all) we could probably settle this matter.

 

But as far as I can tell from the sources provided in the first post Hitler did not base his ideas on the theory of evolution. Even if he had, he had some really warped view on the theory of evolution. He could have also had an extremely warped view on Christianity that inspired him to do what he did, or maybe just a warped view on humanity. Whatever he thought, it was wrong, but that doesn't say anything about where and what he got it from.

And as I said they're not even mutually exclusive; It is possible to be a Christian and believe in eugenics.

 

 

 

Does one 'side' have to be more evil than the other? In the end they were all nazis.

 

So sayeth Wiki

The position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has moved over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years. Today[update], the official Church's position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a "special creation", and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of human origins. This view falls into the spectrum of viewpoints that are grouped under the concept of theistic evolution.[1][2]

 

So yes. In the 30's and 40's Catholic views were less likely to be in line with evolutionary theory.

 

When you take into account the actions of the Nazi party, and add in the comments made in Table Talk regarding religion and Christianity it paints a view closer to atheism rather than Christianity for Hitler. AND the book Inside the Third Riech (by Speer, who actually confirmed Table Talk's author) seems to back it up further that Christianity was only in favor so long as they openly backed National Socialism. Then add to it the threats and violence done against Christians and church leaders from the Nurenburg trials(link ALSO provided by me). Kinda hard to pretend that he was a Christian at the time. Perhaps you should actually read the links I provided rather than just dismissing them outright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you take into account the actions of the Nazi party, and add in the comments made in Table Talk regarding religion and Christianity it paints a view closer to atheism rather than Christianity for Hitler. AND the book Inside the Third Riech (by Speer, who actually confirmed Table Talk's author) seems to back it up further that Christianity was only in favor so long as they openly backed National Socialism. Then add to it the threats and violence done against Christians and church leaders from the Nurenburg trials(link ALSO provided by me). Kinda hard to pretend that he was a Christian at the time. Perhaps you should actually read the links I provided rather than just dismissing them outright.

 

I am not pretending Hitler was a Christian, I simply think that the proof is inconclusive either way. However nazism did have a Christian following, and Hitler's ideas did not originate from an explicitly atheistic line of thought.

 

On the persecution of Christian churches: We had already established that Hitler wasn't fond of organised religion, and you don't have to be an atheist to persecute certain Christians. Perhaps the churches were persecuted for preaching the 'wrong kind' of Christianity (that clashed with the nazis' view of what Christianity should be), but this is speculation on my part. I just want to make it clear that their persecution of churches is no evidence of them being atheists and does not preclude them from having been Christians.

 

From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Religion

 

Elements of militarism found their way into Hitler’s own theology; he preached that his was a “true” or “master” religion, because it would “create mastery” and avoid comforting lies. Those who preached love and tolerance, “in contravention to the facts”, were said to be “slave” or “false” religions. The man who recognized these “truths”, Hitler continued, was said to be a “natural leader”, and those who denied it were said to be “natural slaves”. “Slaves” – especially intelligent ones, he claimed – were always attempting to hinder their masters by promoting false religious and political doctrines.

 

Regardless of Hitler's personal beliefs, this was the nazi party's stance on religion. It is not at all inconcievable for a Christian church that went against the nazi's to be branded "slaves" and "false". So the persecution of churches is not out of line with the public image that the nazi's portrayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Interesting. Former Christian?

 

Islam, you say? Hmm.

 

The religion of the Japanese? I don't think bhuddism is necessarily religious faith in the same way as is christianity, judaism, or islam. I've been lead to believe that there may have been both christian and muslim practitioners of bhuddism. I'm going off of memory (or lack thereof) in one of the texts I've read either about shaolin kung fu or the samurai.

 

I welcome your sentiment as an impartial party. Hard to find people like you around here. :)

 

Yes that's true, I no longer believe in the 'sky bully' and it's been that way for about two years now. While there may be some rather large differences between Shintoism and Abrahamic faiths, I personally believe that Shintoism can be classified as an organized religion or 'faith' ... i.e. something that isn't real. ;)

 

I think we can all agree that Hitler was his own God and he'd say and do anything to accomplish whatever the hell was going on in his mind. To say that Hitler was a religious warrior, i.e. fighting in the name of a power higher than himself, I think is going a bit too far. To connect Hitler's deeds with mainline Christianity is simply a jab at modern day Christians, which is fine... I'm all for offending folks but it seems like this one is getting a little worn out. Don't ya think?

 

We had already established that Hitler wasn't fond of organised religion, and you don't have to be an atheist to persecute certain Christians.

 

As I stated before Hitler obviously believed that there was something wrong with Germany's Christian community, not just little parts of it. Thus he created 'Positive Christianity', a state sponsored religious ideology that exalted the persecution of Jews, homosexuals, dissidents and the annexation of the world. Sounds a lot like modern day Islam and yes I said that.

 

Because I'm not in the Netherlands.

Edited by Sir Phobos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To connect Hitler's deeds with mainline Christianity is simply a jab at modern day Christians, which is fine... I'm all for offending folks but it seems like this one is getting a little worn out. Don't ya think?
If someone claims to hold a superstitious belief, what is the mechanism for disproving that claim?

 

I can think of a handful of potential candidates, but none of them have been presented here. Perhaps you're oversimplifying the issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone claims to hold a superstitious belief, what is the mechanism for disproving that claim?

 

How academic. I guess you could poke Christians for the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda too right? While their beliefs are quite different from mainstream Christianity, they still believe in Christ and you could describe them as Christian.

 

Another safe way to look secular, that's my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I don't see where you answered my question.

 

Also if you intend to use "mainstream christianity" as a baseline, I'm afraid you're going to have to operationally define it. And I apologize in advance if that's too "academic", however I find it preferable to simply making stuff up as I go along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where I have to answer to you right? :rolleyes:

 

"Mainstream Christianity" is a broad term indeed but if you can't grasp the point (or choose to ignore) what I was spelling out to you then that's your problem, not mine. I think someone is feeling a little nitpicky today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always believed that the sign of a sound argument is it's ability to stand up to "nitpicky-ness".

 

The point is that you're throwing terms around haphazardly and expecting everyone to fall over and accept them within the context of your choosing, which coincidentally is the context in which your "arguments" actually make sense.

 

If you wish to show that you are right and everyone who takes Hitler at his word that he was a Christian is wrong, then you'll need to respond to the question posed in post #60.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I stated before Hitler obviously believed that there was something wrong with Germany's Christian community, not just little parts of it. Thus he created 'Positive Christianity', a state sponsored religious ideology that exalted the persecution of Jews, homosexuals, dissidents and the annexation of the world. Sounds a lot like modern day Islam and yes I said that.

 

I'd have to agree with your assessment on that point to an extent, but in all honesty I wouldn't say all muslims are that way. Just for some reason the moderates aren't willing to stand up to the radicals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that you're throwing terms around haphazardly and expecting everyone to fall over and accept them...

 

Who said I wanted that? Accept this then: Muhammed was a pedophile and Islam encourages the rape of children across the world. I hope that offends someone.

 

If you wish to show that you are right and everyone who takes Hitler at his word that he was a Christian is wrong, then you'll need to respond to the question posed in post #60.

 

Thank you for illustrating just how unaware of what my point really is. I also find it funny that anyone would take Hitler at his word (word for word) when he spoke in public.

 

There is a lot of contradictory information in terms of what Hitler said about Christianity both in private and public. It also depends greatly on one's own view of what constitutes being a Christian and how Christianity impacted this individual in particular. We could go on and on you see? And I bet you'd like that. Oh and just for fun, how about this: Hitler was a Christian! You see it makes no difference to me.

 

Either way it comes out the same, it's a tired old argument for people who have a bone to pick with Christianity...a religion that has actually gotten over the whole 'beheading' and 'stoning' type of thing. I hear that Pat Robertson allows his wife to drive an automobile also. That's what I was trying to put across to you. Hopefully you can get it by now

 

Now if that offends you then okay, I'm happy you feel that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the only evidence being presented in favor of Hitler being Christian is his PUBLIC words, not his private conversations and deeds?

 

Nixon was not a crook

Bush Sr instituted no new taxes

Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman Monica Lewinsky

GW Bush was a uniter, not a divider.

 

Public figures LIE in public. Big shocker there. I've presented evidence of private conversations in which Hitler shows a negative attitude towards Christianity. How about rather than just repeating the same thing over and over those of you that still believe that he was a Christian actually post contradicting evidence that is not his public speeches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this sort of dodge work for you often? I'm assuming that you're conceding the point, since you didn't actually address it.

 

The point you were attempting to make had already been debunked, Hitler's private conversations indicate that he despised Christians as well.

 

Is it as unoriginal and overplayed as the whole "Hitler was actually an atheist thing" too? I only see you arguing one side of this debate.

 

Well unlike the Hitler is Christian argument, there is actual proof that can be considered that indicates Hitler was an atheist rather than what Hitler tried to lead people to believe he was out of political expediency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point you were attempting to make had already been debunked, Hitler's private conversations indicate that he despised Christians as well.

 

Well unlike the Hitler is Christian argument, there is actual proof that can be considered that indicates Hitler was an atheist rather than what Hitler tried to lead people to believe he was out of political expediency.

Garfy says it, therefore it must be true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Hitler is to be taken at his "words" no matter how contradictory and be considered as a reliable source of his own beliefs, yet that same person would say that the bible is disqualified as meaningful due to many apparent contradictions. Convenient....:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that, while we may never know whether or not Hitler was an atheist, agnostic, or devoutly religious, his words reveal the motivations and inspirations behind his actions. Indeed, the very act of exterminating Jews comes right out of the Old Testament. By analysis we're applying here, if we're to conclude that Hitler was an agnostic or an atheist (or at least a non-Christian), then we can also conclude that it is equally likely that Moses, Joshua and/or David were as well since they committed similar mass democides or genocides. Hitler paled in comparison to these mass-murderers who are revered by modern Jews and Christians today. Ironic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.....you're contending that Moses, Joshua and David were each individually responsible for the slaughter and or deaths of >40 million people in their respective lifetimes? C'mon, I though you were supposed to be more rational than that. :rolleyes:

 

Btw, didn't actually have you in mind re the comment about biblical relevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to jump in regarding the SS belt buckles mentioned earlier - Gott mit uns was used as a motto by the Wehrmacht - which was separate from the SS - 'Gott mit uns' was a sort of unofficial motto of the German Army for considerably longer than the Third Reich (it was on the inside of helmets during WW1).

 

The motto used by the Waffen-SS was Meine Ehre heißt Treue (My Honour is Loyalty). I don't know how much relevance it has to the debate now, but I felt it was an important distinction to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...