Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@ Emporer's Faithful: Christ did not say to kill the various races listed, that occurs in the old testament. Many Christians believe that Jesus taught a higher law than given to Moses and the prophets of old.

Thus love thy neighbor as thyself (a high-minded law that no country that I am aware of has kept very well) is from Christ as the second great commandment. Killing canaanites was part of the lesser law (according to some Christians), and if you have the stamina to read the old testament you will see that it was not as well kept as you may think. Either way I have not read any scripture in the new testament that quoted Jesus saying "Thou shalt kill . . ."

@Sebster, lol! I think FEMA will probably not arrive on time, right?

Also my 2 cents is that if you bellieve similar to certain tenants of any faith it does not make you a member of it. So even if your belief system is similar to that presented by Christ, it does not make you Christian unless you profess to worship him.

On the other hand if you profess to worship him but do not follow the tenants of his faith, you are also not a Christian. My opinion only, no quotable source or clever/analytical thereom. Just me.

Good luck to you all.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:@ Emporer's Faithful: Christ did not say to kill the various races listed, that occurs in the old testament. Many Christians believe that Jesus taught a higher law than given to Moses and the prophets of old.

Many Christians believe that Christ is God, part of the Trinity. And God certainly did command the utter destruction and annhilation of some select races in the Old Testament.

Thus love thy neighbor as thyself (a high-minded law that no country that I am aware of has kept very well) is from Christ as the second great commandment. Killing canaanites was part of the lesser law (according to some Christians), and if you have the stamina to read the old testament you will see that it was not as well kept as you may think. Either way I have not read any scripture in the new testament that quoted Jesus saying "Thou shalt kill . . ."

So now there are 'Higher Laws' and 'Lesser Laws'? I cannot recall a passage in the New Testament where Jesus claims to overide the Old Testament. On the contrary, and many christians will tell you this, he is supposed to have fullfilled it.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Mike Noble wrote:
Yeah but it says "Thou shalt not kill.", Not, Thou shalt not kill.....unless you really want to."

Just because their are certain people God doesn't like, that doesn't mean anyone can kill them, that would be His job. The way I see it at least.

Do different bibles get 'Kill' and 'Murder' mixed up, or is this a common misconception?

Given that the bible is very clear on the subject of self defence, I suspect that it's supposed to be 'murder'.

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him." Exodus 22:2

"Then said he [Jesus] unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:@Sebster, lol! I think FEMA will probably not arrive on time, right?

Typical Federal Government...

Allright guys....now that I'm back from new job boot camp. I've been reading the thread and I have to say that so many smart people getting wrapped around the axle was amusing but it's also quite sad.

Sebster keeps saying that my source is crap..but he offers no counter source. Mannahin did show a link, which I haven't looked at yet(I will when I get time). For some reason you guys think that anyone that raises their hand and says "I'm a Christian" is one(I haven't peeped over at the other thread yet).

So lets just keep this simple shall we.

Hitler is supposed to have said this..10th October, 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

Do you know of any "real" Christian to have said anything like this? Hitler said Christianity is a failure(paraphrased) Would a real believer say such a thing?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More tidbits from NAZI eyewitnesses.

From Inside the Third Reich, Memiors by Albert Speer, Translated from the German by Richard and Clara Winston, Avon Publishers, 1970:

What remains in my memory of social life at Obersalzberg is a curious vacuity. Fortunately, during my first years of imprisonment, while my recollections were still fresh, I noted down a few scraps of conversations which I can now regard as reasonably authentic....

Amid his political associates in Berlin, Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church, but in the presence of women he adopted a milder tone -- one of the instances where he adapted his remarks to his surroundings.

"The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element," he might say at one time or another in this private circle. However, he conceived of the church as an instrument that could be useful to him. "If only Reibi [this was his nickname for Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller] had some kind of stature. But why do they appoint a nobody of an army chaplain? I'd be glad to give him my full support. Think of all he could do with that. Through me the Evangelical [Protestant] Church could become the established church, as in England."

Even after 1942 Hitler went on maintaining that he regarded the church as indispensable in political life. He would be happy, he said in one of those teatime talks at Obersalzberg, if someday a prominent churchman turned up who was suited to lead one of the churches -- or if possible both the Catholic and Protestant churches reunited. He still regretted that Reich Bishop Müller was not the right man to carry out his far-reaching plans. But he sharply condemned the campaign against the church, calling it a crime against the future of the nation. For it was impossible, he said, to replace the church by any "party ideology." Undoubtedly, he continued, the church would learn to adapt to the political goals of National Socialism in the long run, as it had always adapted in the course of history. A new party religion would only bring about a relapse into the mysticism of the Middle Ages. The growing SS myth showed that clearly enough, as did Rosenburg's unreadable Myth of the Twentieth Century.

If in the course of such a monologue Hitler had pronounced a more negative judgment upon the church, Bormann would undoubtedly have taken from his jacket pocket one of the white cards he always carried with him. For he noted down all Hitler's remarks that seemed to him important; and there was hardly anything he wrote down more eagerly than deprecating comments on the church. At the time I assumed that he was gathering material for a biography of Hitler.

Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Goebbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.

Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eight century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become the heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japaneses, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to use than Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


To quote Herman Goerbels
"The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."

A lot of stuff here... http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id2.html


I'm tired going to bed.

GG

Yeah gg, so he most definately WAS Religious.

To quote Herman Goerbels
"The Fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race... Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."

Ergo, he wasnt an atheist.

Seriously though mate, it is irrelevant, who cares what he was? I really feel that it has no importance with regards to what is going on today, and i really feel that it is Christians that keep bringing it up in some childlish attempt to discredit non believers.

But yeah, he believed in some kinda God, Christian or not. So he wasnt an atheist. Hurrah!

How do we know he didn't change his ideas? He could have very well changed his mind, after all, that quote is somewhat true, Christianity comes from Judaism, so he would have to exterminate them too technically, and Muslims as well.

Eh, doesn't really matter what he was anyway.

I'd assume some sort of Christian, but I could be wrong. In an organization so large you're bound to have multiple religious beliefs held by the members.

In all honesty, I could see Adolf pandering to whatever major religion was abound in the country in an attempt to gain popularity and power, and that was probably Christianity.

Ok, reading this thread has been a slog. So I will make only a few general points at this time.

1. Hitler and his speeches.

I think we can all take it as a given that Adolf Hitler was an amoral opportunist who didn't really care who he sacrficed or victimised in order to achieve his own goals. He was also a master orator. The former comment needs no further exposition, however let me stres this latter point, Hitler is still regarded as one of the to-watch figures when learning the orators craft. Perhaps he was not the best orator of all time, but he was certainly the first to use modern mass media to its full extent. While a lot of that success was due to cinematography and choreography Hitler was at the centre of the drama and his speechcraft was impecable. This is why those studying oratory or political science are encouraged to learn from Hitler above all others no matter the potential penalty if being witnessed doing so.
This is relevant to paint a picture that Hitler was an amoral person who also knew his trade: convincing people through his speechcraft. One of the key factors of speechcraft is not only managing your own delivery but reading your audience, a good orator can read the flow of an audience and adapt as needed to have the best effect. Consequently as with many politicians Hitler said different things to different people for different reasons.

This is why quotes of Adolf Hitler on religion for and against are suspect. Were there some consistency in his commenatries some analogy could be inferred however clearly there is not. there are plenty of Hitler quotes by which he claims to be doing Gods work, others show his open distain for religion. Often one set of quotes or another are brought out to make a point. This is unfair. Both sets of quotations should be used. I wont quote them, we see enough of them from above quotes. What would be interesting is to know what he said and to whome, but most of the quotes I see here and elsewhere do not give much detail as to the setting.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that Hitler said what he said out of expediency. Any cursory look at Hitlers career shows that he cannot be trusted either in his politics or his oratory. Germany's war effort suffered when Hitler insisted his military prioritised fulfilling a promise he had recently made in one of his rallies. Likewise people suffered as Hitler shifted blame or created scapegoats to fuel his own oratory and to focus public ire where he wanted it.


2. Hitler and his personal religion.

Hitler may or may not have had a religious upbringing, he was raised a Roman Catholic, but this may have been either nominal or church going. Frankly it is not really relevant anyway he was certainly his own man, in his position he could believe whatever he chose without much consequence after he was entrenched.
Let us assume a worst case scenario from the point of view of any relgious person who wants to detach Hitler from his own creed and assume that Hitler did have an active faith life in his youth. Does that matter. No it does not as Hitler in his youth was a budding painter and later soldier who attempted to serve his society in both professions to some degree or other. The seed of Nazi-ism might have been there already but it was not surfaced.

Similarly it is known that at the turn of the twentieth century the man later known as Stalin was a Bible college student. Communism under the Soviet Union was very clearly an atheistic system, and stalin was no exception to the leadership.
Stalin persecuted the Russian church extensively, though he failed to destroy it and after a manner 'put it on ice' (beyond the literal meaning of deporting many priests to Siberia). In the Winter of 1941 with the Germans encrouching on Moscow Stalin ordered the churches reopened. This period of remission was not to last and was permitted to suit the strategic prurposes only. By Marxist dogma, as an 'opiate of the masses' relgion was an adequate tool to fix lagging morale during this time of despair.

Any cursory look at the relgiosity of Hitler and the Nazis in general cannot be alluded to from their quotations wherther from speeches texts or belt buckles, especially because they are directly contradictory and there is a logical reason as to why they are so. Soviet Communism is easier to define but still changed its tune to some degree for the same reason of expediency.

Hitler is often credited with being as Christian, though not as any other relgious denomination. Though Norse pagan symbolism is frequently used as well as the Hindu orginated swastika. The symbolism can be safely ignored as symbols are very often rehashed and reused even by religions in relation to each other, such as early medieval Christianity's hijacking of the Yule and Ishtar festivals.

To investage the lives of Hitler and the other Nazi leaders we need to look at the next two points:


3. Christianity. Who is?

As Hitler is credited with being a Christian let us now look at what one is. Let us take this from the source:

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Matthew 7: 15-22 Quotations of Jesus Christ from the Sermon on the Mount.

Verse 16 is the key here, but I covered the lot to ensure context. Not much more I need say on that.


4. Religion. Who is?

A more general comment relating to who is what with regards to both Christianity and other major religions, including Islam. By and large I find this to be true of most successful faiths, it can also apply to denominations within faiths as well as the faiths themselves. To some extent cukts too, well designed cults normally fall apart about Stage C, most cults dont survive Stage A. For the purposes of this statement a cult is defined as a new denomination or faith headed by a less than holy initial figurehead, this is not entirely correct but is acurate enough to suffice for the exercise, defining relgions is difficult at best.

a. Most faiths that go the distance start with a single benign leader wielding considerable respect if not political power. Often these individuals are opposed by the politcal or other relgious leadership of the time, or detached from it. Their followers might be few and they may not have much power themselves.

b. After the initial relgious figurehead passes on to whtever fate their scripture make for them, or the simple death/retirement of a denominational reformer the immediated followers take over. The denomination/faith grows in size and begins to grow in power. The orgnaisation is still largely uncorrupted because it is led by first hand attendeants of the orginal benign figurehead who taught them well.

c. The next generation is taught by those who learned from the orginal figurehead, perhaps they are descendents of the orginal followers. They too may be holy-ish according to the paradigm of the religion because they were raised that way from childhood by the initial core of beleivers. If the leadership was brought in proceed almost immeidately to stage d.

d. The next generation of leadership is taught by the descendents of those who never knew the original leader, as the initial fire has largely died the tenets of the faith. At this point some tenets may change or be corrupted, or omitted out of expediency, error or plain lack of a sufficient complete religious book. As the faith is growing it attracts more people of different backgrounds to it. The leadership may grown more savvy but also more pragmatic.

e. Assuming ther faith is survived this long it is now a major force and a good career move, for some. It can interfere with politcal power rather than just be a pawn of such and is likely to survive long term in one form or another. Because leading such an organisation is a good career move and potentialy lucrative the leadership falling increasingly into ther hands of those who can play economic or politcial games rather than the holiest available person.

In a nutshell: Religious groups start with solid well intentioned beleivers and end up led by and used by politicians.

Thus religion as a powerbase in inherently poltical first and faith based second, if at all.

Understanding of this truth will explain to you not only Hitlers motive for being flexible on his 'beliefs' but also explains why adhering to or condemining a belief/beliefs or the concept of belief can be expedient. It certainly explains Islam, Zionism and much of Christian chruch history. It is important to note that atheism is no solution to religious politics in terms or political tooling Atheism is proven to be just another politicised faith group voting/recruiting blok.


5. What happened then?

When Hitler started his persecutions some Christians were among the the first to go. The mentally ill and disabled were sometimes euthenised, sometimes sterilised on a race purity dogma. Christians died next because some Christian denominations were particularly opposed to Nazi-ism and were vocal about it or practiced the Charismata, which often draws persecution of itself. Approximately 200,000 German Christians were executed, mostly prior to the Final Solution and mostly of fringe denominations.
Jews were already perscuted openly since approx 1937 but no efforts at eradication were made until the Winter of 1941-2.
It is not widely acknowledged that Christians were targeted for extermination partly because the larger denominations were not as heavily touched. Pentecostalism was started in Germany shortly after the Napoleonic Wars, particularly by the Von Bulow family and others in Prussia, only later did it spread to America and elsewhere.
Pentecostalism claims to be a return to the orginal pre-catholic form of Christianty as described in the book of Acts. It is often synonymous with charismatic which means those churches that practice the 'Charismata' - Holy Gifts such as speaking in Tongues and prophesy. Those who understand Christianity may find it interesting and not at all suprising that this particular form of spiritual Christianity was particularly opposed by the Nazis and goes a long way to defining the spirit of Nazi-ism.


6. Further notes.

I will leave you with this:


The above diagram indicates the type of identification markers worn by victims of the concentration camp system in Nazi Germany. Normally modern media shows nothing beyond the yellow 'star of David' which is only incidentally a star of David and means that the wearer is Jewish and without any secondary 'offense'. The example shown on the bottom left is for a Jewish Communist.
Ther basic symbol is a triangle of whichever colour categorises the victim. While Jews comprised the majoirty of the concentration camp system, at least one million others in addition to the six million Jews died in the holocaust.

I wish to draw your attention to the purple triangle: Bibelforsher. This is sometimes translated as Jehovahs Witnesses, however this is not entirely correct. The Nazis did attempt to wipe out the Jehovahs Witnesses within reach and the victims were given purple triangles to wear in the camps. However the symbol also applied to Charismatic, Pentecostal and some other types of Protestant Christianity.

From what I know of generalgrog had the Nazis caught him he would go to the camps wearing such as symbol, so would I.


My Personal Conclusion.

Quotes from Nazi leaders on the subject of religion are flexible enough to be used as propoganda by many with an axe to grind. I can forgive generalgrog for his commenatries as they are mostly used on anti-Christian 'poster' image files, though it would be more accurate to use them to counter commentaries that Hitler was on 'our side' as some like to put it. There is no evidence to link Hitler with any non-Christian religion and the arguments to suggest he was pro-Christian are not convincing because comments in this direction are cancelled out by other opposed quotes. Meanwhile by his actions, which speak far louder than his words, Hitler was bitterly opposed to some forms of Christianity, and played political games with other larger forms. Towards the end even very robust denominations like the Roman Catholics that had attempted to placate Hitler to save their own parishioners were witnessing severe persecution under the Nazis.
In light of all that attempts by anti-Christian groups to paint Hitler as pro-Christian for their own gain is not only ignorant, it's insulting.

vs

That was a lot of typing jus to toss out that old chestnut "he wasn't a real Christian", which has been tossed out already over 7 pages.

I don't offer chestnuts, I offer something logically whole.

You can often condense the truths of books in a line or two, but if that is all that is written they would be rather bare.

Some points are worth explaining properly. Just tossing out opinions dont add any real weight to the arguements on the thread, really they are just a vote on the issue.

Orlanth wrote:I don't offer chestnuts, I offer something logically whole.

Orlanth wrote:
I wish to draw your attention to the purple triangle: Bibelforsher. This is sometimes translated as Jehovahs Witnesses, however this is not entirely correct. The Nazis did attempt to wipe out the Jehovahs Witnesses within reach and the victims were given purple triangles to wear in the camps. However the symbol also applied to Charismatic, Pentecostal and some other types of Protestant Christianity.

Interesting points, I enjoyed reading this. Can you provide a source that shows the translation into Jehovah's Witness is not entirely correct?

Furthermore, the persecution of other Christian sects does not immediately exclude one from being a Christian themselves.

Orlanth wrote:I don't offer chestnuts, I offer something logically whole.

You can often condense the truths of books in a line or two, but if that is all that is written they would be rather bare.

Some points are worth explaining properly. Just tossing out opinions dont add any real weight to the arguments on the thread, really they are just a vote on the issue.

I agree with much of your analysis, however it breaks down when you offer fringe sects in the camps as proof that Hitler wasn't a Christian.

One of the results of the What is a Christian? thread was that it means following the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds. Various minority sects such as Pentecostalists do not follow these creeds, and can be considered not Christian by the established majority churches, thus making them arguably heretical, etc, blah blah blah, and therefore "legitimate" targets for persecution.

That doesn't in itself make Hitler a Christian, of course.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I don't offer chestnuts, I offer something logically whole.

You can often condense the truths of books in a line or two, but if that is all that is written they would be rather bare.

Some points are worth explaining properly. Just tossing out opinions dont add any real weight to the arguments on the thread, really they are just a vote on the issue.

I agree with much of your analysis, however it breaks down when you offer fringe sects in the camps as proof that Hitler wasn't a Christian.

One of the results of the What is a Christian? thread was that it means following the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds. Various minority sects such as Pentecostalists do not follow these creeds, and can be considered not Christian by the established majority churches, thus making them arguably heretical, etc, blah blah blah, and therefore "legitimate" targets for persecution.

That doesn't in itself make Hitler a Christian, of course.

Entirely wrong KK. As a Christian, my perspective is that no heretical group is a "legitimate" target for persecution. There is a difference between persecuting and following truth and trying to help someone understand their error via loving reason. Escpecially to the scale of the inquisition and the holocaust.

The point is that anyone that thinks it's ok to persecute ANYONE is not a Christian.

Melissia kind of had it earlier when she made the statement that 90% of the people in the modern Church aren't really Christians(based on my statements). I'm not saying that 90% is the number but the vast majority of them will be surprised on judgement day. Their is a lot of religious people that have a form of Godliness but deny the power of a true walk with Christ.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

The point is that anyone that thinks it's ok to persecute ANYONE is not a Christian.

So......that would exclude most of christianity over the last 2000 years? If anything I'd say you're in the minority there.

generalgrog wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I don't offer chestnuts, I offer something logically whole.

You can often condense the truths of books in a line or two, but if that is all that is written they would be rather bare.

Some points are worth explaining properly. Just tossing out opinions dont add any real weight to the arguments on the thread, really they are just a vote on the issue.

I agree with much of your analysis, however it breaks down when you offer fringe sects in the camps as proof that Hitler wasn't a Christian.

One of the results of the What is a Christian? thread was that it means following the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds. Various minority sects such as Pentecostalists do not follow these creeds, and can be considered not Christian by the established majority churches, thus making them arguably heretical, etc, blah blah blah, and therefore "legitimate" targets for persecution.

That doesn't in itself make Hitler a Christian, of course.

Entirely wrong KK. As a Christian, my perspective is that no heretical group is a "legitimate" target for persecution. There is a difference between persecuting and following truth and trying to help someone understand their error via loving reason. Escpecially to the scale of the inquisition and the holocaust.

No, he's entirely right. Millions of Christians through history have practiced persecuting others as a part of their faith. As repeatedly mentioned in these threads, Nazi antisemitism was an obvious outgrowth of the long tradition of Christian antisemitism practiced for centuries in Europe.

The point is that anyone that thinks it's ok to persecute ANYONE is not a Christian.

Melissia kind of had it earlier when she made the statement that 90% of the people in the modern Church aren't really Christians(based on my statements).

But the point is that YOU don't get to decide who is a Christian. I find the arrogance you display here kind of breathtaking, coming from someone who proclaims himself a Christian, a religion which I understand supposedly teaches you to be humble.

You can exercise your personal judgment (although I understand that your holy book cautions you about that) over who is a GOOD Christian, but from an objective standpoint the only way to categorize people by religion is to see what religion they claimed membership in, and check the historical record to see what they most closely match. Hitler proclaimed himself a Christian on numerous occasions, as well as criticising the church/religion on numerous occasions. He may have been a bad Christian, but he was certainly a Christian much more than he was anything else.

Or are you going to also claim that Osama Bin Laden is not a Muslim, because he also perverted his religion to justify evil acts?

Emperors Faithful wrote:
Interesting points, I enjoyed reading this. Can you provide a source that shows the translation into Jehovah's Witness is not entirely correct?
Furthermore, the persecution of other Christian sects does not immediately exclude one from being a Christian themselves.

Purple Triangle

The direct translation is Bible Student. This does not mean all who study the Bible, though eventually it might have done so had Nazi-ism persisted. It refered to those outside the mainstream churches, surviving under the kirshenkampf namely Roman Catholicism and Lutheran Protestantism which were too big to persecute and included many appeasers anyway.

The majority of those listed were Jehovah's Witnesses, but not exclusively so. From the Nazis own definition they were defering to those they consistered Bible followers. To follow the Bible yet be outisde the large established churches has a flexible meaning by the victims included any threat to the Nazi regime of a Christian nature. This included fringe christian groups and leaders of other Christian groups that would not do as they were told.
It should be remembered that pre-war numbers of Charismatics in Europe were very small, and while they were targeted as a relgious group they amounted to only a tiny percentage of the camp population.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Some points are worth explaining properly. Just tossing out opinions dont add any real weight to the arguments on the thread, really they are just a vote on the issue.

I agree with much of your analysis, however it breaks down when you offer fringe sects in the camps as proof that Hitler wasn't a Christian.

One of the results of the What is a Christian? thread was that it means following the Nicene and Apostolic Creeds. Various minority sects such as Pentecostalists do not follow these creeds, and can be considered not Christian by the established majority churches, thus making them arguably heretical, etc, blah blah blah, and therefore "legitimate" targets for persecution.

That doesn't in itself make Hitler a Christian, of course.

Orlanth wrote:Persecution of other Christian factions, let alone 'cults' is commonplace in Christian history. However persecution in any form is not Christian and as explained in part 4, such acts are a consquence of politicised leadership of Christian groups and not Christianity itself. In a medievalist sense persecuting fringe groups not accepted by mainstream churches would not only be considered Christian, it may be considered holy! In fact Hitler by attempted to eradicate Jews and Jehovahs Witnesses could attempt claim salvation under Crusader Law as set out by Pope Urban in 1095. Nevertheless such acts then as now are in no means Christian. Politicised Christianity has very little to do with the teachings of Jesus and a lot to do with political expediency, resource accumulation, indoctrination, rabble rousing and focusing the attention of the masses.

There is a contradiction here between Christianity as a religion and Christians as a group of people we observe in the real world, as opposed to what some of them ideally would like to be.

As you say, persecution of fringe groups could be considered a holy act by church authorities under a number of circumstances, and many Christians have justified cruel and brutal acts by that sanction. Whether you or I think they were misguided and wrong to do so, that doesn't make them not Christians.

My post was sitting in my reply window for a long time due to other things.

In addendum what grog says is esstinally correct, though it needs to be reworded a little.

Ketara wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

The point is that anyone that thinks it's ok to persecute ANYONE is not a Christian.

So......that would exclude most of christianity over the last 2000 years? If anything I'd say you're in the minority there.

Christianity is achieved by Grace. All fall short in some means or other, however while good deeds does not achieve Christian salvation, it does help define whether or not someone is behaving as a Christian should.

This is why the difference between the politicised church and those faithful to Christ needs to be established.

Mannahnin wrote:

But the point is that YOU don't get to decide who is a Christian. I find the arrogance you display here kind of breathtaking, coming from someone who proclaims himself a Christian, a religion which I understand supposedly teaches you to be humble.

Actually Grog is following the teachings of Jesus in this regard. 'Know them by their fruit.'

Mannahnin wrote:
You can exercise your personal judgment (although I understand that your holy book cautions you about that) over who is a GOOD Christian, but from an objective standpoint the only way to categorize people by religion is to see what religion they claimed membership in, and check the historical record to see what they most closely match. Hitler proclaimed himself a Christian on numerous occasions, as well as criticising the church/religion on numerous occasions. He may have been a bad Christian, but he was certainly a Christian much more than he was anything else.

Actually no. There is a warning, though it goes the other way: Not to judge a man's salvation. This is purely on the grounds that anyone, even monsters like Stalin and Hitler could technically make a last minute true act of repentence or confession to God before they die.
With some we can be pretty clear where they are going but its is intended as a more general comment. Nevertheless we can comment on whether someone lived a Christian life based on obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Here the waters muddy a little because noone can match up to Jesus' standards. However salvation by Grace followed by an attempt to live according to Jesus' teaching is a detectable element of Christian living known as a Testimony.

Adolf Hitler wasnt a bad Christian, in accordance with Christian teaching he wasnt a Christian at all. He had no detectable Christian Testimony and under the circumstances it is unlikely he made any last minute repentance. Though we cannot be literally 100% sure of that, even within a faith paradigm, just as we cannot be 100% sure of the Theory of Gravity to call it a Law.

Mannahnin wrote:
Or are you going to also claim that Osama Bin Laden is not a Muslim, because he also perverted his religion to justify evil acts?

This is one of the points Part 4 of my prior thread. Islam like Christianity is politicised. Most forms of Islamic miltancy and for that matter Zionist extremism too are essentially political in nature.
While Jihad is a part of the Koran wheras Crusading is not part of the Bible, it is widely accepted amopngst level headed Moselm scholars that Jihad as practiced by Al Quaeda et al is not in accordance with true Koranic teaching.
Jews have similar bugberars written into the pentateuch that are best not taken absolutely literally but are taken as such by extremists.

As with the Bible the Koran is a book intented to be interpreted rather than approached with a dogmatic literalist reading. Bin Laden does not preach the true Islam.

I do not agree with Islam anyway as it is mutuallly exclusive with Christianity, however the pattern of politicisation is similar. Often politicised leaders and members of both relgions do things openly that not only oppress large numbers of people but also do so in direct violation of what their scripture teach.

Mannahnin wrote:

As you say, persecution of fringe groups could be considered a holy act by church authorities under a number of circumstances, and many Christians have justified cruel and brutal acts by that sanction. Whether you or I think they were misguided and wrong to do so, that doesn't make them not Christians.

I'll go back to Jesus' wolf in sheeps clothing parable. And I ask you if a wolf dresses up in sheeps clothing it is a sheep? or is it a wolf? The Christian is the sheep the unrepentent ungodly person is the wolf.

So can a wolf be sheep by pretending to be one?

GG

GG, please go back and actually read through the threads. You missed a lot.

Sebster covered this one several days ago. The Wolf in Sheep's clothing requires deceit. Something is deliberately pretending to be something else.

Hitler or the worst Inquisitors were not wolves, they were sheep. Sheep who killed other sheep. They believed themselves to be Christians, espoused Christianity publicly, and considered themselves to be acting in keeping with their (in our view twisted) understanding of their faith.

Mannahnin wrote:

There is a contradiction here between Christianity as a religion and Christians as a group of people we observe in the real world, as opposed to what some of them ideally would like to be.

As you say, persecution of fringe groups could be considered a holy act by church authorities under a number of circumstances, and many Christians have justified cruel and brutal acts by that sanction. Whether you or I think they were misguided and wrong to do so, that doesn't make them not Christians.

This is why the medieval church insisted on a Latin bible, no translation and didnt encourage teaching Latin to outsiders. Medieval Catholicism went a long way to hide Christian teaching from the populace because it often condemned what they were doing.

Even so mass politics is not rational. Even post the counter reformation and within Protestant denominations politcised leadrs could amass people to strike at each other based on relgious dogma. This extends even into contemprary Ireland and some parts of Spain.

One might think that somewhere like Ireland with modern information media might understand that is Catholic and Protestant hate each other neither are doing what their relgion commands. However often they do not. in some cases the hatred has gone on so long that it becomes habit passed down in generations.

Even without a long term feud politicised religion can rear its ugly head in direct violation of anything that relgion has written or taught by its own holier ancestors. People will follow out of fear, habit or ignorance. This is a powerful tool in the hands of the politicised. However all of this can be 'achieved' without attaining true membership of the religion involved.


Let us put it another way. If someone hacked Dakka took your account details and started filling your posts with unpleasant image files, your account might be censured, you might even be blamed by some, but you wouldn't be responsible and the person who did this would not be posting as you, just masquerading as you.
Relgions are 'hacked into' by amoral opportunists who seek personal gain or to create mischief. As they are often more ambitious, rutherless or politically connected than true believers they find it easier to reach higher ranks.

Orlanth wrote:

Ketara wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

The point is that anyone that thinks it's ok to persecute ANYONE is not a Christian.

So......that would exclude most of christianity over the last 2000 years? If anything I'd say you're in the minority there.

Christianity is achieved by Grace. All fall short in some means or other, however while good deeds does not achieve Christian salvation, it does help define whether or not someone is behaving as a Christian should.

This is why the difference between the politicised church and those faithful to Christ needs to be established.

The problem here is that you're coming into the discussion late and moving the goalposts. When we categorize people into one religion or another we're not talking about what Christians aspire to be. We're not talking about what they should be. We're talking about identifying people as members of one religion or another (or none at all), which is separate from the judgment of whether they are good or ideal adherents and exemplars of that religion.

If you include only those members of a religion who best exemplify its principles, than what do we call the other 90+% of that religion's supposed followers?

Orlanth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

There is a contradiction here between Christianity as a religion and Christians as a group of people we observe in the real world, as opposed to what some of them ideally would like to be.

As you say, persecution of fringe groups could be considered a holy act by church authorities under a number of circumstances, and many Christians have justified cruel and brutal acts by that sanction. Whether you or I think they were misguided and wrong to do so, that doesn't make them not Christians.

One might think that somewhere like Ireland with modern information media might understand that is Catholic and Protestant hate each other neither are doing what their relgion commands. However often they do not. in some cases the hatred has gone on so long that it becomes habit passed down in generations.

Even without a long term feud politicised religion can rear its ugly head in direct violation of anything that relgion has written or taught by its own holier ancestors. People will follow out of fear, habit or ignorance. This is a powerful tool in the hands of the politicised. However all of this can be 'achieved' without attaining true membership of the religion involved.


Let us put it another way. If someone hacked Dakka took your account details and started filling your posts with unpleasant image files, your account might be censured, you might even be blamed by some, but you wouldn't be responsible and the person who did this would not be posting as you, just masquerading as you.
Relgions are 'hacked into' by amoral opportunists who seek personal gain or to create mischief. As they are often more ambitious, rutherless or politically connected than true believers they find it easier to reach higher ranks.

I think you're drawing a false dichotomy between politics and religion. True believers can also be misguided and wrong, and teach messages of hate and persecution. While explicit antisemitism may not be found in the Bible, it was a part of the Christian tradition for centuries, and still is in some places. It is on that evil tree that the fruit of the Nazis Final Solution grew.

Mannahnin wrote:GG, please go back and actually read through the threads. You missed a lot.

Sebster covered this one several days ago. The Wolf in Sheep's clothing requires deceit. Something is deliberately pretending to be something else.

Hitler or the worst Inquisitors were not wolves, they were sheep. Sheep who killed other sheep. They believed themselves to be Christians, espoused Christianity publicly, and considered themselves to be acting in keeping with their (in our view twisted) understanding of their faith.

Thoroughly incorrect. However grog should try and use different analogies or espouse them more fully to avoid you making these thoroughly mistaken analogies. Much of Christian teaching goes a lot deeper than it first appears and should not be used as soundbites unless you are willing to take the time in advance to fully explain what the verses mean. Yes, a wolf-in-sheeps clothing analogy requires deceit. Hitler was nothing is he was not deceptive. The various quotes by which he identified with and denied Christianity can be implied one of two ways; either he was confused or he was deceptive, and Hitler was not confused, not in terms of political communication and spin. He knew what he was doing when he said various things to various people, it was a calculating political end. However I would not put Hitler as a wolf-in-sheeps clothing, he was a wolf-in-wolfs-clothing. His identifiable comments towards Christianity were few and far between. The Churches that dealt with him out of fear not ignorance, they knew him for what he was but had no choice but to deal with him. A side note on this point: The Catholics in particular trod a very thin line between appeasement and seeing their parishioners slaughtered. By keeping the Vatican neutral in the war Pius XII should be honoured rather than vilified as a collaborator, he held the fates of literally hundreds of thousands of Catholic priests and workers throughout Europe, and Vatican neutrality was used to smuggle out many other victims of Nazi persecution.

Mannahnin wrote:

If you include only those members of a religion who best exemplify its principles, than what do we call the other 90+% of that religion's supposed followers?

Jesus called them weeds...

Mt 13:24-29(NIV)
24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

GG

Orlanth, I think your judgment is compromised by your revulsion of Hitler and your eagerness to disown him. While I generally respect your historical scholarship, in Hitler's case he was an avowed Christian and justified many of his acts based on his twisted interpretation of his faith.

I agree that he was a terrible representative of Christianity, but Christianity is the only religion with which he ever identified, and it certainly far more so than atheism.

I agree that he was a manipulator and an opportunist, and that (based particularly on Grog's quotes, although the source of many of them is apparently very untrustworthy), it appears that he became less religious and more hostile to the Christian church later in life.

generalgrog wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

If you include only those members of a religion who best exemplify its principles, than what do we call the other 90+% of that religion's supposed followers?

Jesus called them weeds...

If so, then Jesus' definition is useless for the purposes of keeping useful and truthful histories, and for sociological classification. You started this thread in an attempt to disown people who did evil things in the name of your religion, and attempt to paint them (with some spurious evidence) as atheists. But while that may work in your own mind, for the purposes of discussing what religious (or non) groups different people fall into, the criteria you're attempting to use are useless. By the measures used in any normal survey, America is predominently inhabited by Christians. By the definition you're quoting from Jesus, America is predominantly inhabited by weeds. Can you not see the problem here?

While by your personal definiton of "who counts as a Christian", Hitler may not count, that's not a useful definition when you're talking to anyone who doesn't share your exact religious perspective. On a similar note, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints may posthumously baptize Joan of Arc, Anne Frank, and Buddha as Mormons, but do you think that makes it honest or historically accurate for us to refer to those people as Mormons?

When we're talking about history, and we are talking to people who do not share the exact same religious beliefs as ourselves, we have to work from common and objective definitions. And by the objective, external definitions, a person can be a member of a religion without being a perfect and ideal representative of that religion.

I believe Hitler had a deep and profound respect for the Jesuits and the Roman Catholic Church. However, that respect wasn't rooted in any kind of religious belief. Hitler's respect and admiration towards them was rooted in their means of controlling the masses under their charge. He could see, and understand, how to manipulate people into feeling a profoundly spiritual bond with words, symbols, and environment.

Orlanth wrote: there are plenty of Hitler quotes by which he claims to be doing Gods work, others show his open distain for religion.

As I've said before in other threads, religion and the belief in God are not the same thing, and cannot be used as though they were interchangeable.

One can be religious without believing in God (most prominently some Buddhists), or believe in God without being religious (Agnostic theists).

Given this, its easy to understand how someone might consider themselves to be a Christian while holding disdain for the establishment of religion. In fact, there was a fairly prominent priest who behaved largely in consistence with that idea, I think he nailed something to a door at some point.