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.

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:An incorrect argument sorry. It is entirely contradictory. Let me take two example quotes, we will take an assumption of authenticity for both groups of quotes for now or we will get nowhere

No, that's a ridiculous way to approach any study of history. I mean really, 'it's a bit tricky to examine the reliability of evidence, so we'll just accept it all as true'... what is that?

Assumption is required for most arguments not dealing with established 100% fact. People are raising the quotes, no-one as yet is assaying 'what if the quotes werre not from hitler, except myself as per example.
This is in case you actually see sense look at Hitler his contradictory statements and lifestyle acertain that he was not a Christian than therefore glibly say, 'irrelvenat, proof the quotes were his'.
The quotes have already been accepted because they are the means by which those opposed to my arguments claim his is a Christian.

sebster wrote:
If we have a series of quotes with direct primary evidence, and a series of quotes that directly contradict them, that have no primary source, and that match neatly with the desired political goals of the person who published them... then the only sensible approach is to reject the second set of quotes as inherently unreliable.

This is where you are misreading, perhaps deliberately. We don't have uneven weighting for the quotes, we have all pretty much got them from the internet. While we have double sourced them, or at least I have from various websites from different groups of people.

sebster wrote:
Meanwhile, go and read about positive christianity. If you have any desire at all to actually learn about how Hitler reconciled Christian beliefs and Nazism, you'll find it there.

Reconciled? Sorry mate, Hitlers denomination was a case of join or face Gestapo.

sebster wrote:
But note that he never prosecuted a single German Protestant or Roman Catholic for being German Protestants or Roman Catholics. In fact, he created a church to help them reconcile their beliefs with Nazism. As such, the only sensible conclusion is that he felt very differently about those two faiths than he did about Judaism, or any of the other denominations of Christianity.

Actually there were a fair few. such as those who said no to Hitlers new interference with the church theology.

sebster wrote:
And again, your argument that Hitler might not have been Christian because he persecuted some Christian denominations makes no sense. Catholics have persecuted Protestants, Protestants have persecuted Catholics, but both groups are still Christian.

You completely fail to grasp the point. Yes, Protestantism is a Christian group, yes Catholicism is also, but those who persecute each other are NOT Christians. They might claim to be Christians but are not, they could claim to be cats with as high a degree of accuracy. You are not alone in this misunderstanding, take Ireland for example where medieval hatreds carry into the modern day. Caths and Prods kill each other or shout at each other vehemently for walking children down ther wrong side of the street. Catholicism and Protestantism there mean Catholicism and Protestantism, not Christianity. Sure there are plenty of Christians among them, but anyone fro either community who thinks its a good idea to kill members of the other community is really missing the point of what Jesus said.
Some people might be caught up in all this, believe in Jesus and be deceived enough to think the other side wrong, most arelnt Christian anyway, its just a cultural divide not an actual choice of faith. In any event the leaders who know what is going on rabble rouse and instigate acts of violence do so in complete violation of the teasching of Jesus. They are not Christians.

sebster wrote:
Yes, but as I've already pointed out the GG/Orlanth standard of 'does this person match with our standards of how a Christian should live his life' is an extremely useless element to any historical debate. You can point out that he didn't live a very Christian life, and I'd agree and I expect so would everyone on this board, but that isn't the question. The question has relevance in terms of 'did Hitler believe himself to be Christian' and the answer there is an emphatic yes.

Its an emphatic no, or he would not have said the things he said. Allowing for 'positive Chrsitianity', he wanted to impose Nazisim on Christianity, not Christianity on Nazisim. This makes him an intruder not a member.

sebster wrote:
If you insist on that then I have to tell you that you will never be able to have a useful conversation on the role of Christianity in history. I mean, what nonsense is left of the Protestant Reformation and the violence that followed, with all these not-Christians fighting other not-Christians over which group of not-Christians is the true Christian faith...

I covered the points earlier a few pages ago. Denominations when grown large enough are led by politicians. There is dissent such as what Luther did, and there is vile persecution such as what followed. You are simply unable to see that most of 'Chistian history' is not Christian either.
Let us look at the medieval office of the Papacy, not to pick on Catholics but because it is a crystal clear example. The office of Pope was exceptionally powerful, it ranked equal the the Emperor, it was exceptionally rich, it had colossal influence over pretty much any role of life in any country of Europe, it was the only 'democracy' around, any man could raise to cardinal and any cardinal could be elected Pope. So if you were not born heir to a Kingdom you could achieve extreme power by becoming Pope.

Could it possibly be that not all Popes were holy people, some were amoral political ladder climbers willing to do anything to gain power. Do such men exist? I hope you are able to form a 'useful historical opinion' by acknowledging that men are capable of such.
So assuming some medieval Popes, perhaps even the majority were immoral ladder climbers willing to do anything to gain power, and someone said something that challenged their power such as what Luther did or translating the Bible, might not the dodgy Pope, or even dodgy bishops trying to be dodgy Popes respond not in accordance with Christian teaching, but in accordance with amoral politicians whose power base is threatened.

Now of course when Protestantism arose it was seized upon by various kings to maintain autonomy from the Vaticans influence, and growing denominations ended up led by opportunists rather than saintly men. Actually as Protestant churches did not have the Vaticans power their corruption was merely fiscal, and of course saying what the political leaders wanted them to say.

Sorry sebster, the only way to have a 'useful conversation on the role of Christianity in history' is to start by understanding the role of Christianity in it, in seperation to the politicised leadership of the Christian church. You will then understand the issues a whole lot better, for then and now.
Holy people like Francis of Assissi and Catherine of sienna did wield influence by being genuine holy Christians despite their political times. You can also see the real Christianity in such concepts as the Cluniac movement and in some of the inner working of Anglo-Saxon England. If you understand both sides of the coin so to speak you will understand how the Domesday book could be written in early Norman england whereas such an undertaking was impossible elsewhere. Some of the contributory factors were echos of earlier religious policies that for a time at least reflected a deeper understanding of the Christian faith.

Ketara wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jesus said a lot of things? Many, if not most of which are not all followed 100% by every christian in the land?

Is there not a difference between failing to follow and openly flaunting?

Not really. One is just open to display and more obvious. In both situations, the criteria has still failed to be adhered to.

Actually, ignore everything I have said up until this point. Back to basics. It oft helps to lay out precise points, in order to clarify exactly where you stand.

The Christian view here seems to be:-

Jesus said you should not do X,Y,Z. Therefore if you do X, Y, or Z, you are not a christian. End of story.

The logical flaws with this are that:-

1) Jesus did not claim that one had to follow these criteria to be part of a subgroup specifically labelled 'Christianity'.
2) These criteria are in doubt when compared to the evolution of Christianity across history, as virtually all Christians in times before today espoused completely different criteria.
3) The people issuing the criteria are in no way moreso qualified to issue them, than the people who they are actively trying to make not count as Christian. Therefore either side can label the other as the non-christian, and have just as much validity.

Ok, Ketara its obvious you don't understand Christianity and are trying to expound an opinion on it without first studying the elementary premises of what you are basing your 'logic' on.

- Is there not a difference between failing to follow and openly flaunting?
- Not really. One is just open to display and more obvious. In both situations, the criteria has still failed to be adhered to.

In brief. What you are talking about is called Works and the difference between Works and Faith.

Christianity is defined by Salvation. One believes to achieve eternal life. One is not justified by works one is justified by Faith in Christ.

The essentially teaching is that "all have fallen short of the glory of God", meaning no-one is good enough of themselves to enter heaven by their own efforts. Acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is required for salvation. In part you are correct the criteria is failed to be adhered to be all Christians except Jesus himself, who as the perfect sacrifice had no sin.


- Actually, ignore everything I have said up until this point. Back to basics. It oft helps to lay out precise points, in order to clarify exactly where you stand.
The Christian view here seems to be:-
Jesus said you should not do X,Y,Z. Therefore if you do X, Y, or Z, you are not a christian. End of story.

Jesus told us many things we should not do, some of which are impossible standards to keep. Such as 'if you look at a woman lustfully you have already committed adultery in your heart'.
Jesus said we know people 'by their fruit' indicating by how good they were. Jesus was very careful in his use of analogies, fruit can be fruit without being perfect yet not being rotten. So a good apple can have a blemish, and doesnt mean a rotten apple. Taking this immediately back to the point, was Hitler a 'good apple with a blemish or two', or a 'rotten apple' with or without an unrotten bit somewhere.

The logical flaws with this are that:-

As your premise is thoroughly mistaken, so trying to apply 'logic' on top isn't going to work.

1) Jesus did not claim that one had to follow these criteria to be part of a subgroup specifically labelled 'Christianity'.

Indeed, you are saved by Faith, but your Salvation 'bears fruit', you will know those who are true by the fruit they bear.

2) These criteria are in doubt when compared to the evolution of Christianity across history, as virtually all Christians in times before today espoused completely different criteria.

Actually this is not so, the Bible has been the same for about 18 centuries. However sometimes the Bible is sidelined, kept hidden away or only allowed to be presented in a language closed to the majority of the populace who were largely illiterate. This gave opportunity for Biblical passages to be omitted as was convenient. As the Bible needs to be cross references to be understood properly taking passages deliberately out of context can lead to all sorts of nastiness.
This is mostly a medieval problem though since before Hitlers time people have been able to read for themselves what the Bible actually means. This does not mean that many are just told what it means and dont bother to look it up for themselves.
You need to understand Christinaity vs politicised 'Christianity'. Those at the top know what the Bible says and it hasn't changed, only the methodology for keeping control changes in response to varying access to Biblical sources within the laity.

In any event with regards to such issues as Salvation, a medieval monk will say something broadly comperable to a modern preacher. The differences occur when it comes to how much and in what way one must obey the Church. The Christianity bit stays the same, the political methodology varies.


3) The people issuing the criteria are in no way moreso qualified to issue them, than the people who they are actively trying to make not count as Christian. Therefore either side can label the other as the non-christian, and have just as much validity.

Again is it not a little presumptuous to think your opinion (or anyone elses) of what makes a Christian is of equal weighting to the Biblical testimony. Essentially it is all based on the Bible, no Bible - no Christianity, Jesus' teachings in particular are the yardstick for defining Christianity. For any interpretation to have any internal consistency - and definition of membership is an internal matter - then it must be in agreement with the authoritative source.

Beyond that its laughable for you to say that others are 'no way moreso qualified to issue' criteria as what makes a Christian when you evidently have a very shallow understanding of Christianity anyway. Please find a theologian, an atheist one will do, or a school textbook on Christianity, then come back when you know the basics.

Yeah Orlanth, i made this same point earlier though.

I mean, correct me if I am wrong here (Im pretty sure im not because i read exhaustively about my enemies! ) but if we are not judged on our works, and merely on our belief (even a little lie will get you barred from heaven, so thats why we need to believe in Jesus, because he did all the work for us when he died for our sins on the cross) then isnt being a Christian only really dependant on one solitary thing?

Belief in Jesus.

It seems like if you are way below the standard of heaven for tiny little things, like small thefts or little lies or whatever, than you are no further "way below" if you commit a rape or a murder, because the end result is still the same (no eternal party)

So, isnt belief in Jesus the single important factor in being a Christian? And all of your foul deeds in life are irrelevant?

If thats not the case, and you have to actually live a saintly life, then none of us can really be Christian!

Yeah but the name of the thread is hitler vs religion soooo i reckon hitler did win because if the allies didn't win hitler would've won. as terrible as it sounds.

Orlanth wrote:Assumption is required for most arguments not dealing with established 100% fact. People are raising the quotes, no-one as yet is assaying 'what if the quotes werre not from hitler, except myself as per example.
This is in case you actually see sense look at Hitler his contradictory statements and lifestyle acertain that he was not a Christian than therefore glibly say, 'irrelvenat, proof the quotes were his'.
The quotes have already been accepted because they are the means by which those opposed to my arguments claim his is a Christian.

No, some quotes are more reliable than others. Quotes given in public speaches, recorded by multiple parties, and direct quotes from Mein Kampf are more reliable than quotes from meeting notes, where the notetaker has come out and publically stated he was not happy with the latter editing of his notes.

I can't believe I had to type that sentence.

This is where you are misreading, perhaps deliberately. We don't have uneven weighting for the quotes, we have all pretty much got them from the internet. While we have double sourced them, or at least I have from various websites from different groups of people.

No, they aren't just 'from the internet'. Things on the internet have original sources, and we have all stated the original sources for the quotes we've provided. Mine came from public speaches and from Mein Kampf. GG's came from a generally discredited book with an extremely dubious level of scholarship. They are not equal.

Reconciled? Sorry mate, Hitlers denomination was a case of join or face Gestapo.

That's a nonsense reply, and you know it.

Meanwhile, have you actually read anything about Positive Christianity? Because you'd actually learn something about this subject, and yet you keep writing these long essays professing how hard it is to really know anything about the topic... instead of reading about the key points that really do tell you about Hitler's religion.

Actually there were a fair few. such as those who said no to Hitlers new interference with the church theology.

Yes, prosecuted for saying 'no' to Hitler. As opposed to simply being Jewish, or belonging to any other faith that Hitler considered insufficiently Germanic. The difference is very obvious, and again, you know it is.

You completely fail to grasp the point. Yes, Protestantism is a Christian group, yes Catholicism is also, but those who persecute each other are NOT Christians.

Only if we accept you're extremely poor argument that we can study history and declare people generations later to be properly Christian or not. Which means "A study into Christian life in France, 1400 to 1450" would actually become "A study into the lives of people we think acted sufficiently Christian, 1400 to 1450". Which is fething nonsense.

Now, as I've pointed out a whole bunch of times in this thread, you are welcome to say that you don't think Hitler lived a Christian. I'd agree. But whoopty doo. The question with actual, historical meaning is what Hitler considered himself. And the answer to that question, plainly and obviously, is that he believed himself to be a Christian. His beliefs were particularly warped, ridiculous even, but they derived entirely from Christianity.

Being willing to persecute other Christian groups does not for one second mean he did not consider himself Christian.

Its an emphatic no, or he would not have said the things he said. Allowing for 'positive Chrsitianity', he wanted to impose Nazisim on Christianity, not Christianity on Nazisim. This makes him an intruder not a member.

Yeah, he wanted to intrude upon it, make it subservient to his own views. That's what Hitler did with everything. Notice he didn't do the same with any other faith, only Christianity... because it was his faith.

I covered the points earlier a few pages ago. Denominations when grown large enough are led by politicians. There is dissent such as what Luther did, and there is vile persecution such as what followed. You are simply unable to see that most of 'Chistian history' is not Christian either.

No, I understand very well that many people in history didn't act by your or my understanding of how a Christian should live. It's just I understand that doesn't stop them being part of Christian history, or stop anyone from acknowledging they believed themselves to be acting by Christ's teaching. You simply refuse to understand that very simple thing.

Please just accept that very simple thing. If you want we can all say "Hitler didn't act in a Christian way" and then you can say "But he believed himself to be Christian" and we can all end this, safe in the knowledge that we've finally gotten to agree on what should be a very obvious thing.

So assuming some medieval Popes, perhaps even the majority were immoral ladder climbers willing to do anything to gain power, and someone said something that challenged their power such as what Luther did or translating the Bible, might not the dodgy Pope, or even dodgy bishops trying to be dodgy Popes respond not in accordance with Christian teaching, but in accordance with amoral politicians whose power base is threatened.

Yes, Pope Stephen VI was a really crap Pope, and putting the corpse of your predecessor on trial is not a Christian thing to do. But it makes no sense to then start talking about a Pope as anything but a Christian. Doing so would make a nonsense of any study of history. Do you finally get that?

Sorry sebster, the only way to have a 'useful conversation on the role of Christianity in history' is to start by understanding the role of Christianity in it, in seperation to the politicised leadership of the Christian church. You will then understand the issues a whole lot better, for then and now.

You can do that while following the simple idea of describing people who considered themselves Christian as Christian. In fact, it's the only practical way to discuss the complexity of the faith of its 2,000 years. The alternative proposed by you, to only refer to people who lived up to your standard as Christians is a complete mess. Sorry, but it's very simple, and you're being very ridiculous in pretending otherwise.

Double post. Delete.

Orlanth wrote:

Ok, Ketara its obvious you don't understand Christianity and are trying to expound an opinion on it without first studying the elementary premises of what you are basing your 'logic' on.

Don't understand Christianity? Sir, I am a student of logic, reason, and history. Informing me I have no understanding prior to making any kind of counter-argument to my points makes you come off as rude, and uncultured. You may not intend this, but it is how it makes you appear. Please observe social niceties when debating with me, or I will refuse to participate. Debate with my points, and if you believe me to have no understanding of an issue, expound upon why you think this is. Quantify and clarify it. Otherwise it is no more than condescending mud slinging.

- Is there not a difference between failing to follow and openly flaunting?
- Not really. One is just open to display and more obvious. In both situations, the criteria has still failed to be adhered to.

In brief. What you are talking about is called Works and the difference between Works and Faith.

Christianity is defined by Salvation. One believes to achieve eternal life. One is not justified by works one is justified by Faith in Christ.

The essentially teaching is that "all have fallen short of the glory of God", meaning no-one is good enough of themselves to enter heaven by their own efforts. Acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross is required for salvation. In part you are correct the criteria is failed to be adhered to be all Christians except Jesus himself, who as the perfect sacrifice had no sin.

No. This is not to what I am referring.

I am approaching the definition of a Christian from a strictly linguistic and logical angle. You have just informed me of your belief that a Christian is someone who fulfils critera X by possessing Belief Y. This is your viewpoint, and you are entitled to it. However, should someone disagree with you, and still claim to sit under the label of Christianity, your viewpoint is no more valid than theirs.

- Actually, ignore everything I have said up until this point. Back to basics. It oft helps to lay out precise points, in order to clarify exactly where you stand.
The Christian view here seems to be:-
Jesus said you should not do X,Y,Z. Therefore if you do X, Y, or Z, you are not a christian. End of story.

]Jesus told us many things we should not do, some of which are impossible standards to keep. Such as 'if you look at a woman lustfully you have already committed adultery in your heart'.
Jesus said we know people 'by their fruit' indicating by how good they were. Jesus was very careful in his use of analogies, fruit can be fruit without being perfect yet not being rotten. So a good apple can have a blemish, and doesnt mean a rotten apple. Taking this immediately back to the point, was Hitler a 'good apple with a blemish or two', or a 'rotten apple' with or without an unrotten bit somewhere.

You say he 'was careful in his use of analogies'. However, analogies can be interpreted in a hundred different ways, especially 2000 years after the event in question. The fact that there are so many different branches of the christian faith are in existence is proof enough of this.

Regardless, quoting obscure analogies here does not help clarify the issue. Please state, in a single sentence, what you believe is the definition of a Christian. Then I can agree or debate accordingly.

The logical flaws with this are that:-

As your premise is thoroughly mistaken, so trying to apply 'logic' on top isn't going to work.

My premise? You mean the one of logic and linguistics? If you're following some obscure metaphorical imaginary logic, than I suppose the two would be incompatible. Please inform if this is the case, so I can go and do something more productive.

1) Jesus did not claim that one had to follow these criteria to be part of a subgroup specifically labelled 'Christianity'.

Indeed, you are saved by Faith, but your Salvation 'bears fruit', you will know those who are true by the fruit they bear.

......I'm sorry? I understood all the words in that sentence, and even the structure in which they were formed, but the meaning of it escapes me. Please phrase your argument in more mundane day to day terminology, so I can comprehend what you're trying to get across. Dropping all the obscure analogies might help you in this regard. Otherwise it just sounds like you're spouting some kind of jargon.

2) These criteria are in doubt when compared to the evolution of Christianity across history, as virtually all Christians in times before today espoused completely different criteria.

Actually this is not so, the Bible has been the same for about 18 centuries. However sometimes the Bible is sidelined, kept hidden away or only allowed to be presented in a language closed to the majority of the populace who were largely illiterate.

And? It means all those illiterate people who followed what the Chruch told them were all technically not christians then?

This gave opportunity for Biblical passages to be omitted as was convenient. As the Bible needs to be cross references to be understood properly taking passages deliberately out of context can lead to all sorts of nastiness.

You have stated Jesus made analogies. This means that bar inventing a time machine and asking the man himself what he meant, or finding a documented verifiable written record by him outlining exactly what he meant by them, it's all just so much speculation and pie in the sky. One person interprets it one way, someone else another. You believe that the passages were taken out of context, they would disagree. What makes your opinion more valid than theirs?

This is mostly a medieval problem though since before Hitlers time people have been able to read for themselves what the Bible actually means. This does not mean that many are just told what it means and dont bother to look it up for themselves.
You need to understand Christinaity vs politicised 'Christianity'. Those at the top know what the Bible says and it hasn't changed, only the methodology for keeping control changes in response to varying access to Biblical sources within the laity.

I am of course, ignoring the translation issues with the Bible.

Assuming the Bible has not changed, the interpretation of the document has changed hundreds of times over. Hence the evolution of the Church over time, and its splintering into so many different sects. Therefore you have still not answered the point of what makes your opinion on what constitutes a Christian superior to someone else who says they are christian but espouses different criteria or a different interpretation of the Bible.

In any event with regards to such issues as Salvation, a medieval monk will say something broadly comperable to a modern preacher. The differences occur when it comes to how much and in what way one must obey the Church. The Christianity bit stays the same, the political methodology varies.

So if I were to quiz a Templar in the Middle East on how to treat a Muslim, his answer would be 'broadly comparable' to that of a modern preacher? Or a member of the Spanish Inquisition on someone like yourself? You may respond that these are not issues like salvation, but considering you are attempting to differentiate Hitler from being a Christian based on the fact he committed atrocities, the fact is, the two examples above have both committed atrocities in Gods name, and are universally recognised as Christian today. What makes Hitler non-christian, that does not also invalidate the Knights Templar or the Spanish Inquistion?

3) The people issuing the criteria are in no way moreso qualified to issue them, than the people who they are actively trying to make not count as Christian. Therefore either side can label the other as the non-christian, and have just as much validity.

Again is it not a little presumptuous to think your opinion (or anyone elses) of what makes a Christian is of equal weighting to the Biblical testimony.

I'm not presuming on the Bible. I'm presuming on the interpretation, which differs between time period and individual. You believe the Bible says X,Y, and Z. Someone else disagrees. Your interpretation is no more valid than theirs. Telling me I'm impugning on holy judgement doesn't work in the court of logic.

Essentially it is all based on the Bible, no Bible - no Christianity, Jesus' teachings in particular are the yardstick for defining Christianity. For any interpretation to have any internal consistency - and definition of membership is an internal matter - then it must be in agreement with the authoritative source.

What does internal consistency have to do with the price of cheese? The authoritative source in question, is open to extreme debate on its meanings due to its use of obscure analogies, some of which you have obligingly quoted already earlier. As such, the yardstick is adjustable depending on who is doing the interpretation. You have still failed to answer my query. All you have done is told me I'm questioning the source, when I am questioning the interpretation of that source. Get my argument right, and you might get your counter-argument more on track.

Beyond that its laughable for you to say that others are 'no way moreso qualified to issue' criteria as what makes a Christian when you evidently have a very shallow understanding of Christianity anyway. Please find a theologian, an atheist one will do, or a school textbook on Christianity, then come back when you know the basics.

And so you finish, not only having opened with rudeness, avoided answering my concerns in a non-logical way, and then you close on the way you began. Please read my first paragraph in this post for my response.

sebster wrote:You can do that while following the simple idea of describing people who considered themselves Christian as Christian. In fact, it's the only practical way to discuss the complexity of the faith of its 2,000 years. The alternative proposed by you, to only refer to people who lived up to your standard as Christians is a complete mess. Sorry, but it's very simple, and you're being very ridiculous in pretending otherwise.

This is basically what I'm trying to drive at from a different angle.

dogma wrote:
No, that's fundamentally incorrect. A contradiction involves only one things: a statement that both P and -P are true. The statements you have offered are not negations of one another, and so are not contradictory. This is something that one learns in introductory logic, and it sort of boggles my mind that you cannot, or will not, come to terms with it.

Your last few posts have been very enlightening and I do have a better understanding of what you say.
Before you put any hopes up, it gives me fresh insight into how you are constently fail to grasp the point on some issues. I will add this bit up here too:

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Respectfully trying to apply an inappropriate logical regimen, this is a theology not a mathematical principle.

If the theology is logically invalid, then it is bad theology.

There is more than one type of logic. And no that doesn't mean good logic and bad logic, that means more like an artistic and a scientific 'logic'. You are trying to analyse with principles that you would use for hard sciences and applying them elsewhere. I have been saying this a lot and you havent been understanding it because you come from a different paradigm. I can see how you think in part at least, i dont think you see the obverse side to your own paradigm because as being tought the methodology of logic you were taught you think, quite erroneuosly I assure you that it is the only standard of logic to apply.

However our earlier discussion made the differences a whole lot clearer because it provided some of the clearest examples yet of how your logical paradigm is contrary to my own, yet both are logically consistent with the pattern of what makes good logic.

There is a world of difference between the logical standards that make up a valid premesis on in most sciences than one that holds up in court or in a theological discourse. To you for a contradiction to exist two statements must be contrary at a certain point, as you stated P- and P are considered true. On a more human level, an artistic logic if you will something can be contradictory if they are alternately applied. In hard sceince if P is true then P- and P again then you can draw a graoph over time like a good scientist and show the ghanginf state of P.

If P reperesents properties of a n element, a metaluurgist can appliy a goosd sceintific methodology, including sceintific logic to ascretain properties that could be of use to expand sceince and have priactical effets.

If P represents a cell in a culture dish under observation the changes in state might lead to a medical breakthrough, and a good scientific logic is required to come to the correct conclusions safely.

If P represents a human opinion all this goes out the window. At this point the logical standards you rigorously apply, with a strong element of intellectual consistency thoughout nevertheless comes to little and can turn into utter folly if followed rigidly.

A change of state of mind in a human noted as P cannot be placed under the same logical premises as a as a cell or element. If P changes state it is not like humans change states like automata. something else might be involved. This is where a more artistic logic comes into play. This is no science, but it is not illogical. The logic of a legal argument is logic indeed, but not the logic you might know, it can safely use the word contradiction where you cannot. To you a change of state P over time is a simple change of state, an error occurs only if P has two values at once. To human logic, to artistic logic a change of state over P can be of itself a contradiction. Such a contradiction may well encompass the logic behind a biblical principle, the logic behind a political policy, or the logic that makes the difference between a successful prosecution or an aquital in a court of law.

While I knew there was something I could not put a finger on it clearly until now. Often you have argued your logic, and come up with conclusions that don't make sense, or written off things that make sense from the point of view of a political or theological analysis that is known to be sound as 'fallacy'.
I think this explains why you have been rather exasperated at times, yet stuck to you guns, even when the gun is stuck. Conversely you might think the same of me. It may be hard for you to think outside the way you were taught to, it is for anyone. Many times I have had to look up and reference what you were saying in terms of the logical standards you adhere to, which you are admittedly far more advanced in than I am. I suspect that if we were open an informed discussion on a hard sceince or two you would be quite a formidable debating opponent. I have long been aware that there are different philosophies of thought and no single right and wrong, in human terms at least. However I suspect you don't know this, because while I have been aware of your own paradigm being different, but unable to completely grasp yours; i suspect that you dont easily see beyond your own paradigm much at all, and I suggest you take another look.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Meanwhile you are ignoring the other part of the argument. Above all the point that Hitler failed to be a Christian according to Jesus' methods for detecting Christianity in someone.

Again, you're applying only your emotional understanding of Jesus' teachings. It would not be very difficult for me to present of set of valid reasons for why Hitler's acts were consistent with core Christian principles.

I would challenge you to try. Though providing a list of core Christian principles, and showing understanding of them in order to judge Hitler in accoradance with them in itself would take a fair amount of time and words..

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
How do you come to that conclusion?

Martin Luther excoriated Christianity, if you cannot do that and be a Christian, then he was not a Christian.

From a pre- counter-reformation Catholic point of view yes this is so. Luther was a heretic who harmed mother Church with his rantings.

however fromm a protestant point of view, or that aof a modern Catholic, and most tellingly from a biblical persepctive, Luther was calling for the church to clean itself up. Nothing more. Even now the creed of most Protestant Churches includes:

.....I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,.....

The Lutherans do replace Catholic with Christian, but that is more a historical point. Protestantism is literally a protest against formal Roman Catholic corruption of the day.

By and large dthedenominations get along fine, the only places they dont is where protestantism and Catholicism are placeholders for tribal and deper cultural disagreements, such as happens in parts of Ireland, or Spain, and has really very little to do with the actual religions involved.

Even the Catholics had to admit that Luther had a point, hence the counter-reformation following the Lutherian schism. All this was needed as medieval Catholicism was a sick grossly hypocritical institution blatantly ignoring Biblical principles and Christian teaching. I know next to nothing of Luther's personal life, or if he himself was as corrupt as those he denounced or not. However he had the balls to stand up and denounce a 'Christian' church that practiced extortion, nepotism, intimidation, corruption, gross hypocracy deliberately concealed the actual message of the Bible for its own ends and the direct spiritual detrement of the populace under its care. Other perhaps better men had tried to do this, i do not know what was special about Luthers protest, but suddenly the case was heard.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Again using the human/theological/legal/debate definition of 'contradiction' rather than one applied to pure science.

The definition you are using is that of the sophist, which is essentially how you have presented yourself in this entire thread.

Again, you are mistakenly misusing a school of logic best used elsewhere. All all Law sophistry then? It certainly doesn't use the same methodolgies you stick to.

dogma wrote:
You haven't proven anything. You've made a statement, and then vaguely offered support for your position, while contorting the useful definition of terms to your whim, largely in order to present this as an argument from emotion. I consider this position to be myopic for the very reason that it is deeply rooted in your own biases, which you claim to be able to rise above.

Where is it not proven. My logic is solid and has yet to be tested, all following comments against me have skirted well clear of challenging this. Has anyone yet challenged the concept that one should look at the definition of Christianity as set by Jesus to determine if Hitler (or anyone esle) is a Christian.

Its isn't contorted either. Quotes and references in context were give two pages ago. Perhaps you prefer to see 'contorted' as you prefer to see 'myopic', it does make it easier to avoid having to deal with the arguments head on point on point.

dogma wrote:
I've already explained this. If you are unwilling to use a legitimate standard for what constitutes a contradictory set of remarks, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
-I' m not saying that at all. In fact I don't see how you can draw this conclusion, it makes no sense. Please explain this one.

I asked you if the person who consistently alters their understanding of Jesus' teachings, over time, was still a Christian. You said that he wasn't, hence someone whose knowledge and understanding of scripture changes over time would not be a Christian.

Well you mistunderstood what I said, because it couldn't be translated into the above statement you made, it would be very poor theology. changes in understanding are not only inevitable, they can be welcomed. Paul write of 'milk' followed by 'meat' (1 Peter 2:2, and Hebres 5:12-14) as one learns to digest deeper concepts from the teaching. a change of underastanding descrivbed right there!
There is a world of difference between altering an opinion over time and someone who had a track record of completely contradicting himself. An honest journey into a faith might change from i dont understand this > i am trying to understand this > I understand a little more now > I came upon this but and don't agree with it. Hitlers commentaries are more along the lines: I support it > I hate it utterly > I support it > I hate it utterly.

That sir is an inconsistency in terms of human logic, and religious Testimony. In politics it would be a whole bag full of 'U Turns'. In legal testimony it would be worthless. In terms of reglious testimony it points to ad best a lapsed believer who has fallen away, or someone who was not a believer to begin with.

As consistency and openness of Testimony is one of the New Testaments stronger tenets, indeed many would and have died in lieu if denouncing their Testimony, then Hitlers glib off the cuff super-denials even on their own would but good question to any claim he was a Christian. Its not like he was in a position where he had to denounce Jesus or face persecution, as Peter did, and as have the many who stood silent.

If its not contradictory in accordance with the school of logic you are limited to then clearly your logical methods are inadequate for discussion on topics based on the humanities.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
You are starting from a false premise and misunderstand the concept of a Crisis of faith. Let me give you an example or two from the Bible, I wont dig out quote references at the moment. one example is Thomas' doubts regarding the Resurrection. Jesus blessed Thomas because Thomas belonged to him and forgave his struggles of the faith. King David wrote many psalms at a time of doubt, he was considered a gereat man of Faith, and listed as such iin the book of Hebrews, despite his times of doubt. in times of doubt certain Pslams are recommended verses. and yes we all have doubts, I am still a Christian.

Then why did you say to me that someone who experiences of crsis of faith ceases to be a Christian?
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here, as we appear to be saying the same thing. I asked my question in the negative (eg. Are they not Christian?), perhaps you misread?

Crises of faith help faith grow. King David being a very good example.

dogma wrote:
Only a person can be a Christian.
All persons change their understanding of Christianity over time.
No person who changes their understanding of Christianity over time can be Christian.
Therefore, there are no Christians.

But, again, this may simply be a misunderstanding.

It is a misunderstanding, but at least by folly describing your chain of logic its an honest one. It is another good example of what happens when we both argue conflicting types of logic. The first line I suppose it just to eliminate dogs and cats etc, fair enough. a non scientific logic need not that there but no harm done.

The second is correct, even helpful. Changes of understanding can come from improving ones understand in of Christianity by 'getting closer to God', this can mean an intellectual change, faith change even a trial or difficulty of some sort. a bad patch may lead to a bit of doubt but trials also help you grown and mature and as a result from the Christian point of view changes of understand, even negative one in the short term, can be positive even encouraged. Bible verses to cover this theology available on request.


Now this bit is deep, and comes close to a disturbing verse in Hebrews 6 where it warns thart those who lose their salvation cannot reattain it. This is again is hard to define, as people can Backslide, be further from God than they once were and not cross the line to utter rejection. The rthird part of your chain

dogma wrote:
Either way, I took the topic of this thread to be "What religion did Hitler follow?" My thought is that its difficult to determine, and largely irrelevant, but that, to the extent that it might be an issue, the only reasonable candidate is Christianity.

I also look at the thread as 'what religion did Hitler follow, but with the addition of 'if any'. When looking at this from the point of view of potential Christian membership then it has be looked at according to the internal standards of chritianity, not an open defintion of what random people think Christianity is. If we moved to other 'candidate' religions such as of Norse paganism then the internal definitions there apply. I dont know what those are, so this is not adressed but noone here has made a case as yet to say he was.

Hitler spoke highly of Islam, for what thats worth. So to be consistent we have to look at the internal definition of Islam. I have not done so fully, but have indicated where to look: the Koran. From what I do know of Islam Hitler doesn't apply because he did not go on Hajj (while clearly having the means to do so) make daily confession of do any of the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam[five [/url] things a Moslem has to do, all of which are openly detectable.
Thus by internal consistency rather than hand waving we can rule out Islam.

Its time to be honest and apply logical consitency (see above) to Hitler and Christianity as with other religious groups. I have already provided with the definitive Matthew 7 quote that states he isn't, according to th direct teachings of Jesus. I could cross reference that if you really want me to. But I doubt you actually want to listen to the religion as and of itself. Besides if you repeatedly wont take Jesus' word for it, perhaps there is not point trying to explain further.

dogma wrote:
I'm not taking inherent issue with internal consistency of any statement about what a Christian might, or might not be. Rather, I'm taking issue with what, from my perspective, appears to be a very closed interpretation of Christian scripture and dogma on your part. Christianity is deep, but in large part it appears here as though you aren't justifying your judgment according to textual reference, but your own emotional sense of what that thing means. As such, it appears to me that you're seeing clarity where none really exists.

So in effect you are saying. You am not reading what you are writing, you are basing your opposition on assumptions on my emotional state while doing so. You are falling into a mental trap of not respecting the argument if you can convince yourself not to respect the man behind it.

First one cannot easily tell emotional states of the internet. however it is interesting that you have the assumption that any christian apologist statement is some sort of angst ridden rant. This betrays more about your view on Chriatians than any sort of methodology your espousing.

Sorry, quite calm here. Its likely that grog is calm too. If you read otherwise it is very likely your own inherent, dare I say bigotry, not not as strong as that, coming to the fore.
Sadly you are not alone in this. Most people trying to espouse a Christian point of view have an uphill struggle because what we say is envisioned as a bible thumping rant, even if it is not.
it doesn't stem from anything we write but from a mental image, someone writes from an opposed point of view so the mental image comes cross of an ignorant dogmatist hammering on the keyboard while snarling through gritted teeth. Or something fairly similar. As thsee images of an opposed viewpoint are often subconscious I would prefer to highlight them as potential errors on your part rather than accusations of deliberate attack.

In fact you have trolled me quite a bit in the past, used ad hominem attacks where argument was not enough. I have yet to do so to you. Last post you called me 'myopic'. We have never met, so how do you come to this conclusion? It cant be from behaviour in post because I have always argued the issues with you, even when trolled openly in turn. Now you have been notably more tolerant of late, and I have to thank you for that

Actually to come up with your last comment explains an emotional gulf between us. You claimed I had not made arguments by textual reference, though I had. Though as this is an internet discussion not a Bible study I keep Biblical quotes to the minimum required. I could give references from verses in John, cross referenced with Hebrews and Romans, but most are put off when they see a lot of Bible verses. So i highlighted the one most relevant in Matthew 7.

I will not deny that I have an emotionally charged faith. I am a Christian of course this is a heart issue, however I can still discuss it rationally and have done so throughout. Something less openly admitted, but no les evident is some peoples distain for Christianity, to the point of trolling the thread, or just turning up to call opposed thinking twisted, but not staying to attempt to say why. In all the trolling, or unbacked accusation and fairly strongly worded posts is there not room to suggest that those opposing my argument may not be consumed with an emotive passion, possibly running as lot hotter than my own. Again we are all human, and all have faults. however assumption of a vehemently opposed emotional state of opponents on the internet is a common subconscious trap, it would be wrong for me to accuse you of deliberate rudeness, when applying ones imagination when trying to envision someone you are discussing with is part of the communication process. Perhaps I am also to blame as in if I did not choose this ground to stand on, I would not appear a certain way to you. I am also no less susceptible to this tendency as anyone else here, I am perhaps only more aware of it and choose therefore not to assume on peoples emotional state when posting until the rude words turn up.

dogma wrote:
As such, it appears to me that you're seeing clarity where none really exists.

There is a clarity alright, the concepts of Salvation , the Fruit of the Holy Spirit, Works and Faith. All these are fairly simple concepts at heart. The Bible is deep, the answers here are from the easy reach bits. Know them by their Fruit comes from the Sermon on the Mount, its easy to understand and even a cursory look will show where a man such as Hitler stands in light of it.

dogma wrote:
Saying that Christianity is perverted does not contradict the idea that one is doing the Lord's work, even where the Lord is considered to be the Christian God. Literally dozens of figures throughout history have openly made similar statements, it is not a position that is unique to Hitler.

No, and the idea that those people are not real Christians either is not limited to Hitler. I will openly say that when dodgy church leaders call for persecutions , including medieval Popes, they are not being Christian either and very likely are not.
Take this to the modern age, most Christians disown the Westboro Baptists, and by and large the secular population accepts that and it is rare for anyone try to bash Christianity in general on the backs of Phelps' transparently godless rantings.
in fact Westborob Baptists has been refered to by some secular commentators specifically as a 'non-Christian' group, with a good understanding of how they vehemently differ from Christianity.

What is so hard about reaching the same understanding over Hitler?

Orlanth, as a quick exercise, from a historical perspective, if we are categorizing different historical figures based on their religion, what religion/s do the following people fall into?

Adolf Hitler
Joan of Arc
Oliver Cromwell
King Henry VIII
Queen Elizabeth I
Tomas de Torquemada
Winston Churchill
Martin Luther
King Edward I

Were any of them Christians?

Orlanth, your posts are massive mate, you must be able to type what? 800 words per minute?

sebster wrote:
No, some quotes are more reliable than others. Quotes given in public speaches, recorded by multiple parties, and direct quotes from Mein Kampf are more reliable than quotes from meeting notes, where the notetaker has come out and publically stated he was not happy with the latter editing of his notes.

I can't believe I had to type that sentence.

Far easier to believe than a sentence asking people to define whether Adolf Hitler bore 'good fruit' or 'bad fruit' in his life.


I would be interested in a comprehensive list of the Hitler quotes given here and where they came from, one has not been forthcoming.

sebster wrote:
Meanwhile, have you actually read anything about Positive Christianity? Because you'd actually learn something about this subject, and yet you keep writing these long essays professing how hard it is to really know anything about the topic... instead of reading about the key points that really do tell you about Hitler's religion.

Some, not much. However ordering churches to replace altar Bibles with Mein Kampfs pretty much tells me where is is going.
How many hours do I need to put into studying David Koresh and Jim Jones before I can realise they were dodgy.

I will make it easy for you. Know them by their fruit.

"Hey, I am Hitler, this is what I stand for, and this is the new church you should join." Ok.

sebster wrote:

Actually there were a fair few. such as those who said no to Hitlers new interference with the church theology.

Yes, prosecuted for saying 'no' to Hitler. As opposed to simply being Jewish, or belonging to any other faith that Hitler considered insufficiently Germanic. The difference is very obvious, and again, you know it is.

Sometimes the 'no' was a direct 'no' to Hitlers interference on this churches, not just a general political 'no'. This makes it a relevant 'no' in this case.

sebster wrote:
Only if we accept you're extremely poor argument that we can study history and declare people generations later to be properly Christian or not. Which means "A study into Christian life in France, 1400 to 1450" would actually become "A study into the lives of people we think acted sufficiently Christian, 1400 to 1450". Which is fething nonsense.

No-one would write a book with that title. However Christian life in France in 1400-1450 was quite possible, you could do research on the differences between varuious church grouops abnd their raltion with society. Are they any records of 'heretics' of the time that read the bible in languages other than Latin. Do recorded sermons survive from the time, compare them with politicised Christianity and the Biblical faith.
This sort of thing can and has been done. I don't know of specific books on 15th century France though.
In fact once you understand both the faith and the faith of the times you can get a clearer, not a muddier picture.

sebster wrote:

Its an emphatic no, or he would not have said the things he said. Allowing for 'positive Chrsitianity', he wanted to impose Nazisim on Christianity, not Christianity on Nazisim. This makes him an intruder not a member.

Yeah, he wanted to intrude upon it, make it subservient to his own views. That's what Hitler did with everything. Notice he didn't do the same with any other faith, only Christianity... because it was his faith.

No, because Christianity was the predominant regional religion. If he rounded up all the Protestants and Catholics who would he do it with? Try to think please.

sebster wrote:
No, I understand very well that many people in history didn't act by your or my understanding of how a Christian should live. It's just I understand that doesn't stop them being part of Christian history, or stop anyone from acknowledging they believed themselves to be acting by Christ's teaching. You simply refuse to understand that very simple thing.

I understand it better in fact by appllying Biblical understanding to the subject, something you flatly refuse to do. We have the standards right here, apply them.

Now some can be deceived into thinking they are Christian, thery might even be labelled Christian by history though this would be irrelevant as it is inaccurate. Though it is to some extent forgivable as a historical tool. In Hitlers case doubly irrelevant because there is no confirmation that he was Christian even from a 'twisted' point of view. He was an intruder attempting to hijack Christianity, something completely different altogether. We have a repeated case history of the man saying what he wanted people to hear, and gross amoral inconsistency. All this in my opening post.
The best you can come up with without accessing ther Bible 'Hitler was someone who masqueraded as a Christian when it suited him'. as soon as you hit Mathew 7 and let Jesus determine the issue it becomes a categoric NO.

Hitler can be part of Christian history, he is now part of Jewish history too. Is this because he was Jewish? (Dont answer that)

sebster wrote:
Please just accept that very simple thing. If you want we can all say "Hitler didn't act in a Christian way" and then you can say "But he believed himself to be Christian" and we can all end this, safe in the knowledge that we've finally gotten to agree on what should be a very obvious thing.

The former is true but the latter has no evidence for it. He deliberately chose non Christian imagery over Christian imagery much of the time. Swastika especially. Noone here claims he was a Hindu. No consistency of Testimony and he must have missed out nearly all the pages of the bible of the New Testament to come to his conclusions on the fate of Judaism.

The closest I can come to a compromise is to ask the question did Hitler believe in God, and think that on the strength of what evidence there is reason to say 'yes'. Might Hitler beleive in God in accordance to Christian pattersn of what God is? Less certain but still quite possibly. Does that make him a Christian? Again I will go back to the Biblical definition:

James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.

If that makes Hitler a Christian, that make Satan a Christian also? We could accept to St James' take on the subject, or sebsters. Note that it is not 'my opinion' vs yours I am forwarding here. I even copy pasted it straight from an online Bible to indicate this.

sebster wrote:
Yes, Pope Stephen VI was a really crap Pope, and putting the corpse of your predecessor on trial is not a Christian thing to do. But it makes no sense to then start talking about a Pope as anything but a Christian. Doing so would make a nonsense of any study of history. Do you finally get that?

Better than you do evidently. Because you can say that many dodgier Popes were not Christians. I am happy to do so, and it makes sense to do so, Biblical and otherwise. I am far from alone in this, even History Channel will make the distinction, let alone serious historical writers.
I mentioned earlier that religions when they grow big enough are often led by opportunist politicians. Most honest historians work this one out also.

sebster wrote:
You can do that while following the simple idea of describing people who considered themselves Christian as Christian. In fact, it's the only practical way to discuss the complexity of the faith of its 2,000 years. The alternative proposed by you, to only refer to people who lived up to your standard as Christians is a complete mess. Sorry, but it's very simple, and you're being very ridiculous in pretending otherwise.

Sebster, frankly the only standard to go by is the standard of internal consistency as depicted in the Bible. The Churches themselves acknowledge this.
You are mistaking Christian with someone from a Christian society and member of a Christian organisation. Honest history does not make that mistake. yes people groups can be known historically as Christendom or some such, but those are just names. That rather than glibly joining all persons connected to Christian culture as Christians is the practical way to discuss the complexity of the faith. Indeed this is how it is done.
The alternative you claim 'I propose', is in fact proposed by the Churchs and honest historians secular and clerical is not based on my standards, but on Biblical standards.

So for example we can talk about the Medici popes as leading medieval Catholicism, even mention historical titles held such as Vicar of Christ etc. but only a very bad historian would individually label them Christian. Collectively yes you could because collectively Christian has a different meaning. Like 'medieval France was a Christian country' considered true because it talks about the geopolitical status of medieval France. Likewise if all the church leaders meet it could be refered to a s a meeting of Christian leaders, on pretty much the same grounds.
You might call a current dodgy bishop a Christian on diplomatic grounds. The current Pope is a possible analogy here, though not an especially good one as his perasonal involvement in modern scandals is slight and I would not want to make a call on his 'fruit' on sole account of it.
However you will find it very easy to find people religious or secular denying Phelps the status of 'Christian', they just say Westboro Baptist instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church The wiki site fro the group does not once refer to the group as Christian, most of the myriad sites refereing to this group does not either. Yes for all their many vile faults Westboro Baptists have a far stronger connection to Christianty than Adolf Hitler.


I think we are going around in ceircles.

Hitler was not a Christian.

- Hitler acted completely contrary to Christian teaching.
- Hitler fails the test set out by Jesus himself to determine if anyone is a Christian.
- Hitler failed to give any consistency of Christian testimony.
- Hitler redefined himself and his political unit often associating himself with numerous groups and their symbology, including secular, cultural and and relgious memes both sourced from Christianity and religious groups mutually exclusive with Christianity.
- Hitler further redefined himself and his political unit at a whim consistent only with maximising political gain, thus invalidating any long term meaning within nazi-ismto those elements of Christianity or christian symbolism hijacked.
- Hitler persued few political doctrines with any persistence. Nearly all those doctrines were mutually exclusive with Christian teaching including but not limited to extreme anti-semitism and xenophobia.
- Hitler connected himself to Christianity only to attempt to subvert Christianity. To this ends he attempted to form his own church, and subvert the teachings of the Gospel in favour of teachings more in keeping with his goals. Despite the strong tendency for Christian denominations to persist in spite of opposition Hitlers 'church' did not survive the fall of the Third Reich.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Orlanth, as a quick exercise, from a historical perspective, if we are categorizing different historical figures based on their religion, what religion/s do the following people fall into?

Adolf Hitler
Joan of Arc
Oliver Cromwell
King Henry VIII
Queen Elizabeth I
Tomas de Torquemada
Winston Churchill
Martin Luther
King Edward I

Were any of them Christians?

All of them came from within Christendom. After than mileage may vary and I don't know enough about most of them. You also have to account for their times.

You are asking a difficult thing, I trust you not to hold me too strongly to my answers. But it is a 'quick exercise' so here goes:

We have discussed Hitler.

Some of those especially Cromwell are very difficult characters to place. Cromwell was a devout man, and honest, though he was also a fundamentalist. Militarily he was a man of his time, no more or less brutal than his contemporaries and was open to parley and negotiation. However you tell that to the Irish. Some accusations against Cromwell are not fair, but have long passed into race politics and are difficult to discuss evenly as even modern historical accounts vary depending on where the book was written. I am prepared to believe Cromwell had a genuine Christian life.

I am reasonably sure Jeanne d'Arc was as she was pictured to be. She was an act of circumstance rather than a manipulator of circumstance. If she was a false leader she would not have achieved what she had achieved unless she was exceptionally savvy, and then would not have made her later political mistakes that led to her capture and execution. However you may well know more.

I don't know enough about Luther beyond his protests. His cause was good but I don't know anything like enough about the man.

If Churchill had a faith or opinions on religion he kept it mostly to himself.

Henry VIII was an opportunist, forming the Church of England in order to seperate England from Catholicism. He was educated and was obviously aware of Christian teachings and as church was mandatory at the time and he was caught up in it all his life. He did some unpleasant things, including to thr monasteries and supporters of the Catholic church but was an effective ruler and honest enough to let alone his people. I don't think he showed much 'good fruit', but I cannot say for sure. Elizabeth was almost identical to him in some ways, while Mary was a flipside but far less stable. While we remember 'Bloody Mary' for hunting Protestants Elizabeth hunted Catholics, though this was mostly an internal security matter of grave concern rather than a dogma.

I dont know much about Torquemada, but there is no doubt that what he did was pretty much comperable to Hitler, though on a smaller scale. While a measure of 'strength' is required of any effective ruler of earlier times some persecute out of need and in a way the ends justify the means. The Inquisition killed and tortured on a point of dogma and not necessity.

if I remember my history correctly Edward I was an effective king, but a homicidal tyrant who went way too far time and again. I do not know if he professed any piety.
On this subject please dont use Braveheart as a reference, that is one of the most unfair pieces of propoganda to come out of Hollywood in ther 20th century.


With the medieval mind we have to make some allowances, after all the Bible honours leaders who acted as they did. King David was at times a harsh ruler, yet he is honoured as a Biblical man of faith in both Old andNew Testament. Up to a point the ends justify the means, under a weak king far more people suffer than under a strong but fair king. This does not excuse the Abolition of the Monasteries or Cromwell's pacification of Ireland, though you can look at the whole fruit of a longer life.

Thanks, Orlanth.

The premises upon which you base your categorizations of who is or is not a Christian are not compatible with those we have to use in a sociological or historical discussion. I'm sure your criteria make perfect sense from an internal theological perspective, within the context of how you practice your religion. But those criteria are not usable for anyone who doesn't share your religion, or for many people who do.

You can source any of the quotes Grog used with some easy Googling. If you're really serious about studying the subject, there's a pretty exhaustive bibliography you can put together just from the wikipedia pages on the subject.

Sebster has convincingly demonstrated that Hitler's Table Talk is not a credible source; many (most, all?) quotes in it are uncorroborated, and some of them have Hitler saying them at dates & places where he is historically documented to have been elsewhere. Most of Grog's and your alleged quotes demonstrating Hitler's hostility to Christianity come from this one source. If you want to instantly make your argument more credible, do a quick google on each of the Hitler quotes you're using as supporting evidence, to check whether it's from Table Talk. And if it is, leave it out.

We categorize Hitler as a Christian because that's the religion he was raised in.
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he espoused his faith and belief in Christanity as an adult, and attempted to found his own variation of it (Positive Christianity).
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he continued to endorse and support Christianity (at least his twisted version of it) even after having gained complete control of Germany, when he had no need to pander.
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he never espoused or professed any other religion, and never renounced his faith.

I'm completely willing to accept your and Jesus' authority to judge Htitler as being a BAD Christian (though I think Dogma's got legitimate grounds to dispute that), but from a historical perspective he was a Christian.

Hitler did not merely join the church to subvert or manipulate it. It seems clear that he believed. He drew his evil antisemitism from the traditions of European Christian belief and persecution of Jews. That he focused on that over Jesus' messages of compassion or mercy is a demonstration of Hitler's twisted mind and priorities. A man who attempts to found a variant Christianity based on the idea of an Aryan Jesus struggling against the Jews is clearly a warped human being. But he's a warped Christian. Not a warped Atheist, not a warped Hindu, Buddhist, or neopagan of any stripe.

Mannahnin wrote:Thanks, Orlanth.

The premises upon which you base your categorizations of who is or is not a Christian are not compatible with those we have to use in a sociological or historical discussion. I'm sure your criteria make perfect sense from an internal theological perspective, within the context of how you practice your religion. But those criteria are not usable for anyone who doesn't share your religion, or for many people who do.

You can source any of the quotes Grog used with some easy Googling. If you're really serious about studying the subject, there's a pretty exhaustive bibliography you can put together just from the wikipedia pages on the subject.

Sebster has convincingly demonstrated that Hitler's Table Talk is not a credible source; many (most, all?) quotes in it are uncorroborated, and some of them have Hitler saying them at dates & places where he is historically documented to have been elsewhere. Most of Grog's and your alleged quotes demonstrating Hitler's hostility to Christianity come from this one source. If you want to instantly make your argument more credible, do a quick google on each of the Hitler quotes you're using as supporting evidence, to check whether it's from Table Talk. And if it is, leave it out.

We categorize Hitler as a Christian because that's the religion he was raised in.
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he espoused his faith and belief in Christanity as an adult, and attempted to found his own variation of it (Positive Christianity).
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he continued to endorse and support Christianity (at least his twisted version of it) even after having gained complete control of Germany, when he had no need to pander.
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he never espoused or professed any other religion, and never renounced his faith.

I'm completely willing to accept your and Jesus' authority to judge Htitler as being a BAD Christian (though I think Dogma's got legitimate grounds to dispute that), but from a historical perspective he was a Christian.

Hitler did not merely join the church to subvert or manipulate it. It seems clear that he believed. He drew his evil antisemitism from the traditions of European Christian belief and persecution of Jews. That he focused on that over Jesus' messages of compassion or mercy is a demonstration of Hitler's twisted mind and priorities. A man who attempts to found a variant Christianity based on the idea of an Aryan Jesus struggling against the Jews is clearly a warped human being. But he's a warped Christian. Not a warped Atheist, not a warped Hindu, Buddhist, or neopagan of any stripe.

/the thread.

Mannahnin wrote:Thanks, Orlanth.

The premises upon which you base your categorizations of who is or is not a Christian are not compatible with those we have to use in a sociological or historical discussion. I'm sure your criteria make perfect sense from an internal theological perspective, within the context of how you practice your religion. But those criteria are not usable for anyone who doesn't share your religion, or for many people who do.

You can source any of the quotes Grog used with some easy Googling. If you're really serious about studying the subject, there's a pretty exhaustive bibliography you can put together just from the wikipedia pages on the subject.

Sebster has convincingly demonstrated that Hitler's Table Talk is not a credible source; many (most, all?) quotes in it are uncorroborated, and some of them have Hitler saying them at dates & places where he is historically documented to have been elsewhere. Most of Grog's and your alleged quotes demonstrating Hitler's hostility to Christianity come from this one source. If you want to instantly make your argument more credible, do a quick google on each of the Hitler quotes you're using as supporting evidence, to check whether it's from Table Talk. And if it is, leave it out.

We categorize Hitler as a Christian because that's the religion he was raised in.
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he espoused his faith and belief in Christanity as an adult, and attempted to found his own variation of it (Positive Christianity).
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he continued to endorse and support Christianity (at least his twisted version of it) even after having gained complete control of Germany, when he had no need to pander.
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he never espoused or professed any other religion, and never renounced his faith.

I'm completely willing to accept your and Jesus' authority to judge Htitler as being a BAD Christian (though I think Dogma's got legitimate grounds to dispute that), but from a historical perspective he was a Christian.

Hitler did not merely join the church to subvert or manipulate it. It seems clear that he believed. He drew his evil antisemitism from the traditions of European Christian belief and persecution of Jews. That he focused on that over Jesus' messages of compassion or mercy is a demonstration of Hitler's twisted mind and priorities. A man who attempts to found a variant Christianity based on the idea of an Aryan Jesus struggling against the Jews is clearly a warped human being. But he's a warped Christian. Not a warped Atheist, not a warped Hindu, Buddhist, or neopagan of any stripe.

I think we can agree to disagree here, for no other grounds that while I continue to thoroughly disagree with you, you put your point of view respectfully and politely. I have nothing more to say that hasn't already been said and I continue to state that your conclusions are erroneous, for the reasons said a priori. However it is pointless reiterating them I merely refer to them for the most part.

Thus I will draw attention to but one portion highlighted in bold.

While its nice to be seen to share an opinion with Jesus on something, should Jesus' opinions on Christianity hold I higher weighting than yours or mine?

Also from his quotes on the subject:

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Yes Hitler was not a prophet, but this passage accounts for more than just the office of prophesy. In any case we are looking at good fruit and bad fruit, this analogy is set out to determine true from false beleivers not brelivers from those whom are not believers. Were Hitler to be measured up within or against Christianity, this is the yardstick and these are the consequences.

Paul expounds on the concept of spiritual fruit in Galatians 5: 19-23

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

The passages are clear, to me at least. What fruit did Hitler yield? Nothing good; and what are the consequences? Nothing pleasant.

Can it be taken as Gospel (sic) that if Jesus says someone is not a Christian, they are not.

I need not attempt to set a defence of my position higher than that.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara, invoking Chuck Norris is probably not smart. Allowing for the fact his is, amongst other things, a devout Christian and theologian, have you considered who he would give the thumbs up to here?

Orlanth, since Jesus is not here to tell us whom is a Christian or not, his authority is only available by proxy, through the medium of fallible human judgment.

Grog has demonstrated the fallibility there- that by his interpretation of Jesus' judgment, America is principally inhabited by human beings he would call "weeds" rather than "Christians", as those people self-identify.

I continue to maintain that judging a person by their "fruit", the outcome of their actions, is an inapplicable way to recognize the religion they believe in. Many people have done evil while sincerely believing their actions to have been in the interests of good and by the sanction of god. Hitler, as did Cromwell, Torquemada and countless others through history, justified his murders as holy. The evidence strongly supports the conclusion that he believed he was going god's work against those who murdered Jesus and whom he saw as parasites on Christians & Christian nations as fleas or rats are parasites on a dog or a farmer. You can still meet people today who hate Jews and commit violence against them under the same rationale. My mother did her doctoral studies of some of them, members of the Identity Christian movement.

I appreciate your courtesy in your arguments, even if I find some of them deeply disturbing and contrary to truth (such as your willingness to accept Hitler's Table Talk as a credible source of evidence).

I don't think this thread is going anywhere, but I'll chime in again.

Just because Hitler was baptised and never left the Church does not make him a Christian. I was Baptised and never formally left the Church, but I am certainly not a Christian. Hitler paid lip service to Christianity, but he never showed a particuler interest in the Church and never attended. The reputable comments he made about the Church are inconsistant, but human's opinions on subjects are in constant flux and you can hardly expect the statements of a young man to be identical to his opinions 20 years later. He obviously had a very warped perspective on Jesus, especially since Jesus never claimed to be anti-Jewish. Hitler conveniently ignored all teachings that were not conducive (sp?) to his goals and twisted Jesus into an Aryan freedom fighter, a belief that had little to no basis in reality.

If Bullock's A Study in Tyranny is considered a reputable resource I recommend reading the following passage: Hitler's views on Christianity.

Amaya, non-Christians don't generally attempt to found Christian sects in keeping with their interpretation of Christianity.

There are two quotes on that page in the book you linked to. One is critical of Catholic priests. The other is negative about Christianity in general. The latter quote is taken from Hitler's Table Talk. So there's Bullock quoting a bad source in his book, and drawing a conclusion partially based on credulously swallowing info from that bad source.

Hitler publicly and privately endorsed Christianity, including after he came to full power. He certainly also had harsh words for the Catholic Church and for priests, but so did Martlin Luther, and no one claims that Martin Luther was not a Christian. Martin Luther, incidentally, being also the author of On the Jews and Their Lies, a text very much illustrative of the deep and old tradition of Christian antisemitism in Europe.

Okay, just ignore Bullock. Obviously any source that attests that Hitler detested Christianity is invalid.

Mannahnin wrote:Amaya, non-Christians don't generally attempt to found Christian sects in keeping with their interpretation of Christianity.

Oh wow, where to begin. By that logic Mohammed is a Christian.

Hitler publicly and privately endorsed Christianity, including after he came to full power. He certainly also had harsh words for the Catholic Church and for priests, but so did Martlin Luther, and no one claims that Martin Luther was not a Christian. Martin Luther, incidentally, being also the author of On the Jews and Their Lies, a text very much illustrative of the deep and old tradition of Christian antisemitism in Europe.

Are we talking about Hitler or Luther? Whether or not Luther is a Christian is not relevant and it has already been established that anti-Semitism has deep roots in Europe.

I double-checked on the Bullock link and was editing my post as you posted. Bullock may be perfectly respectable, but the Hitler quote used as evidence of him opposing Christianity in there comes from the same single disreputable source- Hitler's Table Talk.

Mohammed didn't attempt to found a sect called "Positive Christianity".

Luther is relevant here as a classic example of a Christian who condemned the church and criticised it in EXTREMELY harsh terms. He is proof that one can be harshly critical of one's own own church and religion.

Mannahnin wrote:I double-checked on the Bullock link and was editing my post as you posted. Bullock may be perfectly respectable, but the Hitler quote used as evidence of him opposing Christianity in there comes from the same single disreputable source- Hitler's Table Talk.

Mohammed didn't attempt to found a sect called "Positive Christianity".

Oh, so you have to call your new sect something Christianity. So would that make Mormons non Christians?

Didn't Hitler give up on Positive Christianity?

Didn't Hitler state "We do not want any other God than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."?

Christians bagging on other Christians still all look like Christians to non-Christians. Their self imposed desires to separate themselves from other Christians doesn't often hold up to internal criticism, let alone external.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:Oh, so you have to call your new sect something Christianity. So would that make Mormons non Christians?

There are certainly a good number of Christians that would say they aren't.

Which is why this is thread is going nowhere. It is impossible to convince either side that the other side is correct.

The problem here is that we aren't talking about a subjective element like "what is your favorite song". The truth of history is important and pretending he didn't claim to be a Christian (no matter how perverse) is just wrong. We aren't debating whether he was a good Christian or not, that is a different issue all together and would have a much greater consensus. Every reliable source, including the man himself, said that he was a Christian.

Ahtman wrote:The problem here is that we aren't talking about a subjective element like "what is your favorite song". The truth of history is important and pretending he didn't claim to be a Christian (no matter how perverse) is just wrong. We aren't debating whether he was a good Christian or not, that is a different issue all together and would have a much greater consensus. Every reliable source, including the man himself, said that he was a Christian.

Even though there are accounts stating otherwise and the ignored fact that had he alienated German Christians his rise and solidification of power would have considerably more diffuclt. The academic consensus on Hitler is that his religious views were conflicted, inconsistant, and constantly in flux.

He's a Christian, but he never attended Church.
He's a Christian even though he is created a radical offshoot (a la Mohammed, Mormonism, and various cults).
He's a Christian even though he conviently ignores Christ's two greatest commandments.
He's a Christian even though he is a proponent of Nazism.

Nazism/Positive Christianity is built around the myth of Aryan Christ (How many Christian churches believe that Jesus was not Jewish), only Germans/Nords could become Christians (Jesus stated explicitly that his message and salvation was for everyone), and a myriad of other beliefs that have no basis in anything that Jesus taught.

The "he's Christian because he said he was" is a flawed argument. You can claim to be anything.

Amaya wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I double-checked on the Bullock link and was editing my post as you posted. Bullock may be perfectly respectable, but the Hitler quote used as evidence of him opposing Christianity in there comes from the same single disreputable source- Hitler's Table Talk.

Mohammed didn't attempt to found a sect called "Positive Christianity".

Oh, so you have to call your new sect something Christianity. So would that make Mormons non Christians?

What? I said that a non-Christian would be highly unlikely to call his new religious sect any kind of "Christianity". You drew a false equivalency between Mohammed and Hitler, and I pointed out
that Mohammed didn't call his religion any sort of Christianity.

Amaya wrote:Didn't Hitler give up on Positive Christianity?

I'm not sure. What I've read tends to indicate that he talked less about religion towards the end of his life.

Amaya wrote:Didn't Hitler state "We do not want any other God than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."?

I've been trying to track down a second source of that quote and haven't managed to find one. I'd really like to read it in context.

Amaya wrote:Even though there are accounts stating otherwise and the ignored fact that had he alienated German Christians his rise and solidification of power would have considerably more diffuclt. The academic consensus on Hitler is that his religious views were conflicted, inconsistant, and constantly in flux.

He alienated some German Christians, sure. But he led the vast majority of them, given that most of the German citzenry supported the Reich, and most of them were Christians.

The academic consensus is that he was critical of the Catholic Church, especially as a rival to his power, that of the Third Reich, and that of his variant of Christianity. There is agreement that some of his beliefs were obviously conflicted (any form of Christianity combined with genocide is, IMO). But there is no evidence to suggest that they were "constantly in flux".

The contradictions between his views on Christianity are exagerrated by one highly-dubious book (Hitler's Table Talk) which shows indications of likely being written specifically to disassociate Hitler from Christianity. Otherwise respectable and rational people like Bullock and Orlanth have fallen into the trap of credulously referencing this book.

Amaya wrote:He's a Christian, but he never attended Church.

Sure. No need to attend a church to be Christian.

Amaya wrote:He's a Christian even though he is created a radical offshoot (a la Mohammed, Mormonism, and various cults).

All kinds and flavors of religious people can be radical. By my lights Mormons are definitely Christians, although I'm not a Christian, I'm just judging as someone who's done some undergrad study in Sociology and Comparative Religion, as well as some clergy training of my own. If you're equating Mohammed with any kind of Christian I'm afraid you're just going to come off as a troll.

Amaya wrote:He's a Christian even though he conviently ignores Christ's two greatest commandments.

Love god? Easy enough. Love thy neighbor as thyself? Hitler made the same rationalization in that regard as Cromwell did when he had burning tens of thousands of Irish Catholics burned to death.

Amaya wrote:He's a Christian even though he is a proponent of Nazism.

Yup. As were most Nazis.

Amaya wrote:The "he's Christian because he said he was" is a flawed argument. You can claim to be anything.

The only way to categorize people by religion is to go by what religion they profess to believe and follow. You can judge them as a bad Christian if they fail to live up to his tenets, but if they proclaim their faith in Jesus and God, and don't support or belong to any other religion, then what else can we really call them?

Authority of the biblical account with regards to Christian teaching.

Mannahnin wrote:Orlanth, since Jesus is not here to tell us whom is a Christian or not, his authority is only available by proxy, through the medium of fallible human judgment.

Well there is a consistency in the Biblical testament, and without it there is no Christianity, as all Christians faiths rely on it. Whether or not the Bible is a credible document is not the issue here, we are taking Christianity and membership of Christianity as the topic, within this set of beliefs the Biblical account must remain the paramount source and authority. If the Biblical account is rejected, for whatever reason, then no matter what criteria you replace it with to determine membership, what you are defining would NOT be Christianity.


On Talk Talk

Mannahnin wrote:
I appreciate your courtesy in your arguments, even if I find some of them deeply disturbing and contrary to truth (such as your willingness to accept Hitler's Table Talk as a credible source of evidence).

I had not heard of 'Table Talk' until this thread. what I had done is studied the rise of the third Reich, the war itself and to some extent Hitlers methodologies with regars to spin and propoganda. I mentioned earlier that he is a good source for information with regards to the methodologies of demoagogue politics, poltical spin and oratic skill in the television age. With regards to presenting oneself for television and spin Hitler is actually a positive source to learn from, not just an object lesson.
One of the major lessons here is concealment of purpose, in this end like insider comments on what went on in Downing street or the White House there is much to learn from observations of personal staff and lieutenants. I don't see why comments recored by Martin Bormann are less acceptable as evidence than comments recorded from other sources. If Hitler said different things to different people that makes quite a bit of sense.

At the very least it should only be dismissed for good reason. The fact that is doesn't say what those who wish to paint Hitler a Christian want to read is not of itself a good reason.


Method to the madness.

Now I do not know where you get the idea that Table Talk is not to be trusted, or necessarily why. Though one website I found on the subject , if you are in agreement with it could explain much.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

This page from the no Beliefs website, is a crude and horribly biased account with a very clear axe to grind. It was the sort of page that discussed Christianity on the backs of a forum set up to bash reglion, in a manner than excludes any understanding of it, buy people who if offered a clearer understanding of christianity in all likelhood wouldnt want to know.

Some of the blanket statements are beyond the pale. Here is a quote from the document:

No Beliefs wrote:
Further injuries to the argument against Hitler's Christianity reveals itself in Hitler's own personal actions toward Christianity.

If Hitler had really wished to eliminate Christianity, then why did he act to unite the Protestant and Catholic Churches in Germany?

If Hitler wanted to denounce Christianity, then why did he remain a Catholic in good standing until he died?

Hitler uniting Protestant and Catholicism betrays a complete mis-understanding of Hitlers hijacked church. 'Positive Christianity' did not seek to unit it ought to replace, something else entirely. also Positive Christianity was nort a true denomination, it found no convertsand did not survive the war. Had it had any merit it would have done so, even if under a changed name.
As for "Hitler remaining a Catholic in good standing until he died." Really any self respecting Catholic ought to be offended by such an outrageously baseless and defamatory statement.

No Beliefs may well not be source you wanted, but it is possibly indicative of the attitude here. The reasons for rejecting any connexion between Hitler and Christinity are sound from with Christian teaching, Christian behaviour and the Bible. yet many, as seen here includuing hardcore atheists who want nothing more than to spread relgious unrest and cause offense insist ofn claiming otherwise in front of all the evidence to the contrary.


The credibility of Hitlers comments.

Table Talk is a side issue. Actually I account a lack of credibility to pretty much everything Hitler said, on the grounds that he was proven time and again to be an opportunist whose promises were worthless. The Munich agreement should be enough to tell us that. If Hitler cannot be trusted over his intentions towards Czechoslovakia, if Hitler cannot be trusted with his intentions towards Poland, why should be be trusted with his intentions towards God? I would think if anything one would get more sense from Hitler in private when not recorded on tape than a speech on the record, simply because of who he was. Hitler needs to play the crowd all the more when the crowd was there.


Hitlers religosity, drawing valid parallels.

Can Hitler be considered part of any religion? UIt will not do to say Hitler wasnt this he qwasnt that therefore he was a Christian. None of the above would be more appropriate and in terms of organised relgion this is the case. However Hitlers mentality throws up comparisons between himself and some religious parties. Hitler had the airs of a guru, he was expected to have opinions, and an audience, usually one that could not gainsay him. If he comes to a conclusion that 'Aryan Jesus liberated man for Jewish opression' that is not even a twisted version of Christianity, imore easily the ramblings of a cult guru.
In this one has to look for a better comparison not between Hitler and Christianity but between Hitler and cult leaders, because there are some very close parallels.

I have a book to recommend you on this subject, a secular work, which I cannot find at home in the moment (my space Marine army is out for painting is my favourite excuse for the mess). I will post the book recommendation later, apologies for the delay.

Anyway one of the consequences of being as cult guru is that as one expresses more and more opinion, one gets increasingly trapped behind ones doctrines, especially if the doctrines are ad libbed. This is common amongst Messianic cults, wheras the leader in order to remain ahead of the game attributes new 'truths' or 'revelations' to account for emerging questions. Much of what I read about the Hitler quotes, follow this pattern. Secondly most cult leaders self-identify, and Hitler was no exception. Hitler self identified Germany's fate with his own, tom the point that Albert Speer confronted him in ther bunker asking for a settlement, for the sake of the continuitity of the German people. Hitlers reply, paraphrased here was that the German people should not survive him, he was in effect the living icon of the German race. This is the sort of thing people like Jim Jones of David Koresh say, indeed they identify in much the same way, and follow the same logic traps that gets them to this point.

On this last point David Koresh. He claimed he actually was Jesus. Does that make him a Christian? It would take a very twisted theology to say that he was, or that the Branch Davidians were, they were just another cult. This is not really contested by anyone.

Third, Hitler as with many cult leaders amalgamated a frankenreligion based on numerous different sources. A 'Christian' Hitler would likely not have allowed the swastika to represent his nation, nor would have allow Norse emblems either unless they were superimposed into a hijacked for of a new Christianity, which they were not.
Now the early church did amalgamate portions of other religions but for a completely different purpose, namely replacing pagan festivals with Christian ones. Christmas and Easter are both pagan festivals for which the paganism has all but disappeared, except the date and the occasional reference to the Yule log. The time of Jesus' birth is unknown, the time of the real Easter is: the Passover.



An unhealthy motive.

Anyway. Hitler is not as Christian, Christians say so, can show so and more to the point from all appearances so does Jesus. He certainly wasn't a holy man, so why do some persist on forstering him on us?

Hitler is a unique boogeyman figure. There is Godwins law for threads tuirning to Stalin or Pol Pot, and no generational guilt such as is fostered on the German people.
Wouldnt it be nice, from a rabid atheist point of view, to paint Hitler as a Christians to get them to share the beatstick with the modern Germans?

Perhaps this is why No Beliefs brings up their tirade on the comnnexion between Hitler and Christianity, without referencing and understanding of what Christianity is in it.

Perhaps this is why commentaries Hitler made against Christianity ire quickly dismissed as non-evidence, wheras other sources are accepted blindly though the criteria would be rejected in others with more plausible though still bogus claims to being 'Christian'.

Perhaps this is why when Christians say "not in my name", some transparently non Christians insist on fostering Hitler onto us in spite of what Christianity actually entails.

Perhaps this is why according to the Biblical account even Jesus says "not in my name", yet Hitler is fostered upon Him by people many of whome themselves reject Him.

Frankly I wonder about peoples motives for attempting to do such a derogatory and inciteful thing.

If Hitler can be accepted to be a Christian than any nut who wants to change a religion to suit his purposes can be whatever he claims to be.

So to conclude, I believe this answer is as relevant to Orlanths last post as any new one could be.....

Mannahnin wrote:Thanks, Orlanth.

The premises upon which you base your categorizations of who is or is not a Christian are not compatible with those we have to use in a sociological or historical discussion. I'm sure your criteria make perfect sense from an internal theological perspective, within the context of how you practice your religion. But those criteria are not usable for anyone who doesn't share your religion, or for many people who do.

You can source any of the quotes Grog used with some easy Googling. If you're really serious about studying the subject, there's a pretty exhaustive bibliography you can put together just from the wikipedia pages on the subject.

Sebster has convincingly demonstrated that Hitler's Table Talk is not a credible source; many (most, all?) quotes in it are uncorroborated, and some of them have Hitler saying them at dates & places where he is historically documented to have been elsewhere. Most of Grog's and your alleged quotes demonstrating Hitler's hostility to Christianity come from this one source. If you want to instantly make your argument more credible, do a quick google on each of the Hitler quotes you're using as supporting evidence, to check whether it's from Table Talk. And if it is, leave it out.

We categorize Hitler as a Christian because that's the religion he was raised in.
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he espoused his faith and belief in Christanity as an adult, and attempted to found his own variation of it (Positive Christianity).
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he continued to endorse and support Christianity (at least his twisted version of it) even after having gained complete control of Germany, when he had no need to pander.
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he never espoused or professed any other religion, and never renounced his faith.

I'm completely willing to accept your and Jesus' authority to judge Htitler as being a BAD Christian (though I think Dogma's got legitimate grounds to dispute that), but from a historical perspective he was a Christian.

Hitler did not merely join the church to subvert or manipulate it. It seems clear that he believed. He drew his evil antisemitism from the traditions of European Christian belief and persecution of Jews. That he focused on that over Jesus' messages of compassion or mercy is a demonstration of Hitler's twisted mind and priorities. A man who attempts to found a variant Christianity based on the idea of an Aryan Jesus struggling against the Jews is clearly a warped human being. But he's a warped Christian. Not a warped Atheist, not a warped Hindu, Buddhist, or neopagan of any stripe.

Ketara wrote:So to conclude, I believe this answer is as relevant to Orlanths last post as any new one could be.....

Mannahnin wrote:Thanks, Orlanth.

The premises upon which you base your categorizations of who is or is not a Christian are not compatible with those we have to use in a sociological or historical discussion. I'm sure your criteria make perfect sense from an internal theological perspective, within the context of how you practice your religion. But those criteria are not usable for anyone who doesn't share your religion, or for many people who do.

You can source any of the quotes Grog used with some easy Googling. If you're really serious about studying the subject, there's a pretty exhaustive bibliography you can put together just from the wikipedia pages on the subject.

Sebster has convincingly demonstrated that Hitler's Table Talk is not a credible source; many (most, all?) quotes in it are uncorroborated, and some of them have Hitler saying them at dates & places where he is historically documented to have been elsewhere. Most of Grog's and your alleged quotes demonstrating Hitler's hostility to Christianity come from this one source. If you want to instantly make your argument more credible, do a quick google on each of the Hitler quotes you're using as supporting evidence, to check whether it's from Table Talk. And if it is, leave it out.

We categorize Hitler as a Christian because that's the religion he was raised in.
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he espoused his faith and belief in Christanity as an adult, and attempted to found his own variation of it (Positive Christianity).
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he continued to endorse and support Christianity (at least his twisted version of it) even after having gained complete control of Germany, when he had no need to pander.
We categorize Hitler as a Christian because he never espoused or professed any other religion, and never renounced his faith.

I'm completely willing to accept your and Jesus' authority to judge Htitler as being a BAD Christian (though I think Dogma's got legitimate grounds to dispute that), but from a historical perspective he was a Christian.

Hitler did not merely join the church to subvert or manipulate it. It seems clear that he believed. He drew his evil antisemitism from the traditions of European Christian belief and persecution of Jews. That he focused on that over Jesus' messages of compassion or mercy is a demonstration of Hitler's twisted mind and priorities. A man who attempts to found a variant Christianity based on the idea of an Aryan Jesus struggling against the Jews is clearly a warped human being. But he's a warped Christian. Not a warped Atheist, not a warped Hindu, Buddhist, or neopagan of any stripe.

Was that last bit necessary? Ah, yes, Christianity is evil, but because of Hitler and not the crap in the OT.

Hitler quotes and things to support his Christianity:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

Fate must bring retribution, unless men conciliate Fate while there is still time. How thankful I am today to the Providence which sent me to that school!

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Thus my faith grew that my beautiful dream for the future would become reality after all, even though this might require long years.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

The more the linguistic Babel corroded and disorganized parliament, the closer drew the inevitable hour of the disintegration of this Babylonian Empire, and with it the hour of freedom for my German-Austrian people.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Not until my fourteenth or fifteenth year did I begin to come across the word 'Jew,' with any frequency, partly in connection with political discussions.... For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

I was not in agreement with the sharp anti-Semitic tone, but from time to time I read arguments which gave me some food for thought.

At all events, these occasions slowly made me acquainted with the man and the movement, which in those days guided Vienna's destinies: Dr. Karl Lueger and the Christian Social Party.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

(Note: Karl Lueger (1844-1910) belonged as a member of the anti-Semitic Christian Social Party, he became mayor of Vienna and kept his post until his death.)

The man and the movement seemed 'reactionary' in my eyes. My common sense of justice, however, forced me to change this judgment in proportion as I had occasion to become acquainted with the man and his work; and slowly my fair judgment turned to unconcealed admiration. Today, more than ever, I regard this man as the greatest German mayor of all times.

-Adolf Hitler speaking about Dr. Karl Lueger of the Christian Social Party (Mein Kampf)

How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement!

My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)


Members of the Nazi Party:

We struggle for a union of the small Protestant state churches into a strong Protestant Reich Church.... We are acting not as a party, but as Protestant Christians who only follow a call to faith from God, which we here in our Volk movement. As true members of our church we have a legitimate claim to have appropriate consideration given to the greatness and inner strength of National Socialism in church life and the church administration.

-Helmut Brucker, "Richtlinien fur Kirchenfragen," Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf (10 Nov. 1932: Breslau), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

When Point 24 of our program says the party stands for a positive Christianity, here above all is the cornerstone of our thinking. Christ preached struggle as did no other. His life was struggle for his beliefs, for which he went to his death. From everyone he demanded a decision between yes and no.

-Walter Buch "Geist und Kampf" (speech): Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf (probably given between 1930 and 1932), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Public need before private greed.... So important and meaningful is this phrase that Jesus Christ placed it in the center of his religious teaching. However, since Christ was not a politician, since his Reich was not of this world, he put the calling into other words. He taught: love your neighbors as yourself! National Socialism is therefore nothing new, nothing that a person after much consideration would not come upon as the solution to the economic plight of the Germans.

-Walter Buch Der Aufmasch, Blatter der deutschen Jugend 2 (January 1931), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]