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.

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

Except, of course, your sentence was an entirely pointless aside raising a point that no-one was disputing. I have to admit I was a little surprised when I saw you raise it, because it has nothing to do with this conversation.

Meanwhile, the ridiculously obvious sentence I wrote is

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

I provided it in my first post on this thread;

The actual, reliable quotes from Hitler that we do have paint a very different picture;

From Mein Kampf;
"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."

From a Munich speech; 28 July 1922
"Just as the Jew could once incite the mob of Jerusalem against Christ, so today he must succeed in inciting folk who have been duped into madness to attack those who, God's truth! seek to deal with this people in utter honesty and sincerity."

Another Munich speech, 1 May 1923
"We have faith that one day Heaven will bring the Germans back into a Reich over which there shall be no Soviet star, no Jewish star of David, but above that Reich there shall be the symbol of German labor - the Swastika. And that will mean that the first of May has truly come."

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.

Hopefully it would take very little time to know they weren't good Christians. And you'll note very little time has been spent studying if they were good Christians, instead we ask the far more important question "what were their beliefs and how did these beliefs play into their actions?"

I now eagerly await your claim that neither Jim Jones nor David Koresh had Christian beliefs.

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.

And still very obviously different to persecuting a person for simply belonging to a faith. Come on, you know this, this is obvious.

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.

And at no point during the writing of that book would the writer designate people as Christian or not depending on his or anyone else's view of how a good Christian should live. They were raised in Christian communities, they believed themselves Christian and so we call them such. We would likely note any weird or even heretical beliefs they might have, but we wouldn't deem anyone not Christian if they led an evil life. Because the purpose of history is not to make judgements on someone's suitability to go to heaven, the purpose is to study the history of their actions, and the context in which they came to make those decisions.

If it offends your sensibilities, then learn to deal. But don't pretend you get to decide how history treats its study.

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.

Don't try to be catty. It's not your strong suit. Hitler targeted many strong and influential groups in Nazi Germany, most notably the socialists, who wielded teriffic power until Hitler turned the power of the state on them. If he'd had any antipathy towards the Christians they would have seen it. Instead he made considerable efforts to reconcile Nazism with Christianity, because he believed in both, and believed both were part of good German character.

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.

Which is a good and worthy ambition to apply to your life. But it's got nothing to do with history.

Given we're not talking about whether Hitler offers a good Christian example to the rest of us, but we're just looking at the plain history of what Hitler believed, it really, really should be clear to you by now that your standard is irrelevant, only the historical standard matters.

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.

There is strong evidence. It has been presented in this thread, then repeated over and over again.

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?

Excellent! That's all I've been trying to say from the beginning. Well, except the bit where you claim Hitler's belief in a Christian God is less certain, because it's really very certain.

And yes, I'd say by any my judgement of what makes a good Christian, I'd agree that Hitler wasn't one. Point is, history doesn't care about what makes a good Christian, because the purpose of studying history isn't to judge. It's simply to know, and what matters here is that we know that Hitler believed himself to be Christian.

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.

I don't see what biblical figures have to do with any study of history. No historical study would ever be concerned with the state of mind of Satan. And we are not taking my take on anything, because the point is to remove your take, my take and even St James' take on what makes a good christian. Because all our opinions have nothing to do with the study of history.

All that matters is how Hitler was raised, and what he believed.

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.

Pointing out that many people in the Christian faith didn't live good Christian lives is fine, and well known. Going through a historical study picking and choosing who should be called Christian based on who we deem to have been good Christians and who we deem to have not would make for a terrible piece of historical analysis.

What would you call all the people who thought themselves Christian, but who didn't bear good fruit?

I mentioned earlier that religions when they grow big enough are often led by opportunist politicians. Most honest historians work this one out also.

Most everyone works that out, sooner or later. It isn't in dispute. The only issue in dispute is the terminology and methodology we use to study religion in history.

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.

No, history doesn't give a darn if they met anyone's standard of good Christian living. If you'd read any proper historical works you'd know this. In fact, I'm certain you do know this, and are just grinding this out because you really don't want to admit, either to us or to yourself, that you're wrong.

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.

You are proposing it, because you're suggesting we start studying history in a totally new way. Whether your source comes from the Bible or not, it doesn't matter.

The Bible is an incredibly important historical work. But it is not our guide to the study of history. You know this.

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.

No, that's nonsense. If a study was made into any of the Medicis, in an effort to explain why they acted like they did, it would include their religious beliefs. To the extent that Christian beliefs spurred their actions, we would say that. But what absolutely wouldn't ever matter is whether or not they were ultimately good Christians. History doesn't make those judgements.

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.

Yes, because this is the only practical way to study history. What you're suggesting in response would produce nothing but drek.

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'd be right on board with saying Phelps and his kind do not live Christian lives. But if I was to write a history on them I would describe the Westboro Baptists as a Christian denomination. And no-one in historical circles would bat an eye.

I think we are going around in ceircles.

Hitler was not a Christian.

You keep pretending that yours, mine, or the bible's judgement of what makes a person a Christian is what matters in historical study. It isn't.

- 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.

They were directly in line with Hitler's Christian religious beliefs. To you and me that it seems that only a crazy person could believe both things. But, well, Hitler was more than a little crazy.

- Hitler connected himself to Christianity only to attempt to subvert Christianity.

Except, of course, Hitler didn't see it as subversion. He believed he was restoring it to it's rightful place, like any other raging egomaniac might.

Orlanth wrote:
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'.

Yes, there are multiple sorts of logic, but they are not divided according to whether or not they are "Artistic" or "scientific". I think that what you're really talking about here is the philosophical discipline of aesthetics, which is something that is governed by logic, in its myriad forms, but is not actually logic itself. You illustrated this by placing the word logic in quotations; seemingly indicating a loose usage of the term.

Orlanth wrote:
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.

No, they aren't. Well, mine is, but yours is essentially sophistry. You aren't using logic at all, and consistently refuse to do so.

Orlanth wrote:
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.

There is no point in continuing this. You have a massively flawed understanding of what logic is. I suspect that its because you seemingly refuse to use the term correctly in order to lend credence to your position. The fact that alternate elements may be involved does not indicate that logic is not useful, it indicates that the data from which we are working is imperfect. This is literally what I have been arguing this entire time, and why I have insisted on a highly open interpretation of any information cited. You, on the other hand, have argued restrictively while stating that a certain conclusion cannot be true due to some vague "ethos".

To put it simply, again, you are finding clarity where it doesn't exist because you are filling the gaps in data with your "artistic logic" (read: aesthetic judgment) rather than admitting to your own necessary ignorance due to insufficient information.

sebster wrote:

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

Except, of course, your sentence was an entirely pointless aside raising a point that no-one was disputing.

Pointless according to you. Not pointless according to the teachings of Jesus. Who is better fit to define Christianity, you or Jesus?

sebster wrote:

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

I provided it in my first post on this thread;

Not that is relevant, as he still transparently fails to fit the standards of Jesus, however quotes were raised and the quotes are discusseed as a secondary issue. Sadlty your commentary is far from not inclusive or exhaustive. Where are the quotes on Islam I found, where did you quote and debunk quotes opposed to yours. Listing a few quotes that fit your side of the argument is not comprehensive. The challenge has been made from the OP that Hitler made comments that criticised Christianity, and others in support of other faiths.

As stated I hold all quotes from Hitler as unreliable as to his motives, because they are contradictory and because he himself was unreliable as to any promise in his public life, which raises honest question as to whether any portion of what he said was a reliable indication of his true self. This standpoint is logical due the track record of unreliability of Hitlers promises of any kind and the inconsistency of what Hitler said anyway.

Despite this you cling to one set of quotes, and reject others, without fair reason. Some of those who recorded quotes of Hitler knew him well, to dismiss part of the recorded evidence on the ground that it doesnt fit your conclusions is highly suspect thinking and betrays an inability to consider this issue openly and fairly.

sebster wrote:
Hopefully it would take very little time to know they [Jim Jones and Davisd Koresh] weren't good Christians. And you'll note very little time has been spent studying if they were good Christians, instead we ask the far more important question "what were their beliefs and how did these beliefs play into their actions?"

I now eagerly await your claim that neither Jim Jones nor David Koresh had Christian beliefs.

They professed 'Christian beliefs', mixed in with a whole lot of other stuff, in both cases a of of Indian mysticism is thrown into the mix. Whether they believed any of it is up for question, very likely not due to the coomon pattern of sying what you want people to hear. Eventually many cult leaders do, beleive thier own teachings, but thats not as religion thats a psychosis. It's how a lot of cult leaders burn up, they get trapped into pretending so much they self identify. Koresh for example eventually began to claim he was Jesus. This does not make him a Christian.

This was namedropping, its a very common recurring pattern in cults, self identification with other religions. Christianity and Hinduism are particularly targeted for this being the core and best known occidental and oriental religious mindsets. Stuff Jesus said is very often hijacked, the quotes after all are familiar.

In a way its a bit like identity theft. If I stole your credit card, am I actually you? Of course not. Likewise while identification with central religious figures is an easy leg up.

sebster wrote:
And at no point during the writing of that book would the writer designate people as Christian or not depending on his or anyone else's view of how a good Christian should live. They were raised in Christian communities, they believed themselves Christian and so we call them such. We would likely note any weird or even heretical beliefs they might have, but we wouldn't deem anyone not Christian if they led an evil life.

Then your book would be mis-titled. Books on 'Medieval Christian life' as history very often do look into the spirituality, they wouldn't be any good if it does not. Now a book on the 'Medieval Church' might not, big difference. One is a social history, the second a political one.

sebster wrote:
Because the purpose of history is not to make judgements on someone's suitability to go to heaven, the purpose is to study the history of their actions, and the context in which they came to make those decisions.

To effectively study the actions we have to take them into account in accordance with their own teaching. This is a common theme on social religious history.

sebster wrote:
Don't try to be catty. It's not your strong suit.

You call me comments as ridicule, but with no shortage of hypocrasy doing so. Hitler couldn't have rounded on the Catholics and Protestants in the way he rounded on some of his other victims and you know it, as did he. He couldn't have acheived the goal.

sebster wrote:
If he'd had any antipathy towards the Christians they would have seen it. Instead he made considerable efforts to reconcile Nazism with Christianity, because he believed in both, and believed both were part of good German character.

So many saw it, which is why so many priests were arrested and churches closed. It was a campaign known as the Kirchenkampf.
Using the word 'reconcile' is very much loaded and betrays your total inability to view this issue rationally. One doesnt reconcile one group to another by sending in the Gestapo and threaten those church leaders who do not agree. That isn't a reconciliation its a take over or hijacking.

sebster wrote:
Which is a good and worthy ambition to apply to your life. But it's got nothing to do with history.

Given we're not talking about whether Hitler offers a good Christian example to the rest of us, but we're just looking at the plain history of what Hitler believed, it really, really should be clear to you by now that your standard is irrelevant, only the historical standard matters.

The historical standard itself uses fair definitions, and those who write honest histories look into the meaning of the words they use to decribe those they study. Consequently most books on the history of the Third Reich do not refer to Hitler as a 'Christian'.

sebster wrote:
There is strong evidence. It has been presented in this thread, then repeated over and over again.

Nagging doesnt add to any weight of opinion.
You simply dont have evidence of Christian identity of Hitler. Not fromm a definitive poijnt iof view of what makes a Christian, nor from any attempt to reconcile rather than subvert the churches, nor from any quote for which a counterquote cannot be found or dismissed out of hand due to the proven track record of the inability to pin Hitler down as someone who tells the truth in his speeches.

Let us cover this last point again.

Did he completely reneged on his promises over the Munich agereement. Did he renege on his priomises towards Mussolini, did he renege on his promises toeards the Soviet Union? Yes to all the above.
He reneged on other promises too. You yourself mentioned how Hitler turned on the Socialists. I remember one quote of his where he 'welcomed Communists into the Nazis'. Later many Communists wore red triangles in labour camps. Hitler didn't tell the truth to communists.
The Kirchenkampf itself took several turns and one group or another was threatened or bullied: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenkampf So he was sweettalking some Christians while smacking others.

In spite of all this you still insist on taking some quotes, and a very limited selection of quotes on the subject as that as something reliable, and in doing so you try to set up standards of what make a reliable historical study.
Are you really that naive, or are you just looking for any excuse to bash Christians.

Sorry mate. You show a complete error of historical judgement by taking Hitlers commentaries of how he supports Christianity as reliable. Hitler was anything but reliable on this issue. There are very few politicies in which he was reliable and consistent, his anti-semitism for one, that came through load and clear from the beginning.
the very fact that some church groups were closed and others taken over, is fairly strong evidence that the Christians like the communists were people Hitler sweet talked. What he eventually wanted to do with them is anyones guess. Hitler was whimsical after all. But its a very big stretch to say he was pro-Christian, and one that can be taken only by hutting ones eyes to Hitlers character and track record. Which is a very odd thing to do if one is to analyse him historically.

sebster wrote:

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?

Excellent! That's all I've been trying to say from the beginning. Well, except the bit where you claim Hitler's belief in a Christian God is less certain, because it's really very certain.

You ou missed out the point of the comment by omitting the Bible verse to which I was alluding.

Hitlers belief in the Christian God is far from certain because Hitlers commentaries cannot be trusted by any rational and fair minded historian. Hwe is too inconsistent, too deceptive and we have ebidence that he harmed chuirches raising storng questions that any or all of his quotes on the subject could be flat out lies. Just as so many other things he said.
As it is possible he was not lying there is reason to say, as I did say in the quote that Hitler might have believed in God. Its up in question, its far from the incontrovertible fact you prefer to think it is.

In any case, let me un-misquote you. According to the Biblical source believing God exists means nothing. After all the demons do - and shudder.
So by believing the God of the Bible exists one could be on the way to being a:
Christian, Moslem, Jew, Mormon, Jehovahs Witness, Christian Scientist, or some forms of Satanist, and that list is anything but exhaustive.

sebster wrote:
Because all our opinions have nothing to do with the study of history.

All that matters is how Hitler was raised, and what he believed.

Pointing out that many people in the Christian faith didn't live good Christian lives is fine, and well known. Going through a historical study picking and choosing who should be called Christian based on who we deem to have been good Christians and who we deem to have not would make for a terrible piece of historical analysis.

What would you call all the people who thought themselves Christian, but who didn't bear good fruit?

In the context of a historical study. What usually happens is that the hypocrasy of the character is clearly highlighted. This is a very common inclusion on most political histories of the Catholic church. In the event of people like a dodgy papacy the word 'Christian' is usually avoided as a personal definition. I remember a BBC production on the Crusades which handled this aspect very well, and another on the Medici popes. Now avoiding the word Christian when refering to the Medieval Catholic church is rather difficult, and would be at least in part unfair, but its normally heavily quantified.
Hitler was a secular leader, not a church leader. The only reason one would bring up his 'chiristianity' would be to make a very unfair point, and oner that cant reliably substantiated at best and at worst is a completely erroneous descriptionb of the man. And this hasnt yet touched the biblical perspective yet.

sebster wrote:
Most everyone works that out, sooner or later. [politicsation of large scale relgious groups] It isn't in dispute. The only issue in dispute is the terminology and methodology we use to study religion in history.

A good historian choose his language carefully. after all language of itself changes. Often even common words are reexplained if they mean something different to the modern image of the word. Christian is one such word, because it is important to highlight the differences between current Christianity and the medieval past.

No, history doesn't give a darn if they met anyone's standard of good Christian living. If you'd read any proper historical works you'd know this. In fact, I'm certain you do know this, and are just grinding this out because you really don't want to admit, either to us or to yourself, that you're wrong.

Your comments are laughable. Whether or not a historical figure was a pious or impious man had enormous influence on the historical record. It may well be recorded in contemporary studies and analyses as a factor in determining the characters mentality. This involved looking at the religion involved.
A historical study of say Edward the Confessor is inadequate without a look at the mans spiritual life and standards. They affected what he would do or not do, how he was seen by his people how the Papacy saw England.
A study of Oliver Cromwell or Alfred also require a study into his spiritual life in order to get a measure of either man. In both cases the personal beliefs and choice of ethics had far reaching consequences. Understanding their spiritual beliefs is tantamount to understanding their nature, and attitudes.
None of the three can be studied with any authority without an understanding of Biblical Christianity as well as and understanding of hiow Christianity was seen at the time.
How do we understand Cromwells puritanical code and howe that influenced the Commonweath and the office of the Lord Protector, unless we look at the particular dogmas that were central to his thinking.
Can you understand the consequence of Alfreds eight hour candle regimen and his personal mission to translate the Bible into English by himself. Only by looking at the consequence of that we can see how William of Normandy was able to commission the Domesday book, and get what he wanted. Translating ther bible shaped Alfreds later thinking in a profound way and it reshaped much of Anglo-Saxon England. At the time the Papacy forbade translation of the Bible from latin, so only the Church had access to what it actually said. As many in England knew otherwise because Alfred translated the Bible, Christianity in England was subtly different from that elsewhere in Christendom.

If you persist in yourclaim that personal standards of Christian living are flatly irrelevant to historical record, then you have a very poor undestanding on how to conduct a historical analysis.

You are proposing it, because you're suggesting we start studying history in a totally new way. Whether your source comes from the Bible or not, it doesn't matter.

New, decent historians have been studying history this since Victorian times, in all likelihood before.

The Bible is an incredibly important historical work. But it is not our guide to the study of history. You know this.

Indeed I do, I would not deny either statement as true. However I did not. The Bible is not the guide to all hisdtory, that would be a very narrow fundamentalism, its is key to any part of history where the Christian mindset is a contributory factor, and to ignore it is likely to lead to a critical misunderstanding of the figures involved.

No, that's nonsense. If a study was made into any of the Medicis, in an effort to explain why they acted like they did, it would include their religious beliefs. To the extent that Christian beliefs spurred their actions, we would say that. But what absolutely wouldn't ever matter is whether or not they were ultimately good Christians. History doesn't make those judgements.

However history does make comment on such, time and again. Its very much relevant to the record. One cannot understand the ties without describing the nature of the religion of the time. To someone reading a history book words Church Pope and Christianity have modern meanings unless indicated otherwise. Most books will cover these points. The only time it might not is if the book is taillored for a student of theis period of history as a further study material. That is now rare and most hood historical writers attempt to be accessible.
In any case further notation needs to be made about the spiritality of most of the Medici, or more usually the transparent lack of it. Even amongst a highly politicised relgious system the religious machianations of the Medici raised a dour reputation. This could be capitalised upon to their advantage, it could also backfire. Giovanni de Medici was the last non priestly Pope. Pope Leo X transparent hypocrasy on spiritual matters compounded with the Medici hypocritical spiriutal values but high connetions with the papacy, all this was noticed and was possibly one of the major catalysts for the Reformation. Had the Medici been less transparently unspiritual, had their personal relgion been ignored by their contemporaries as you demand it should be done, then perhaps Matrtin Luthers protest, which happened during Leo X's tenure may have fizzled. Luther condemned the corruption of th church, something the church was resistant to critique of.


At the very least the personal spirituality of the Medici is a factor that needsto be looked into. It afects history quite a bit. How can you claim to endorse a study of history with such obvious blinkers. If you ignore the relevance of personal core beliefs of historical figures because your dogmas wont allow you to factor in the spirutual side of the religion iof Christianity, then your dogmas prevent you from having any reliable input on the subject. I am not even asking you to be a Christian to make the assessments, just to undderstand Biblical Christianity and look at the historical figures lives in accordance with it, if they are potentuially connected to Christianity in an openly personal or political way..





Yes, because this is the only practical way to study history. What you're suggesting in response would produce nothing but drek.

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'd be right on board with saying Phelps and his kind do not live Christian lives. But if I was to write a history on them I would describe the Westboro Baptists as a Christian denomination. And no-one in historical circles would bat an eye.

Actually those who understood the times better might. It is relevant that Phelps contemporaries largely do not use the word Christian to refer to him, that should be a telling point of any future historical account. Should you call his group a Christian denomination when the contemporary accounts do not, then you are writing poor history. 'Fringe church' is a commonly used alternative to define the Westboro Baptists.

They were directly in line with Hitler's Christian religious beliefs. To you and me that it seems that only a crazy person could believe both things. But, well, Hitler was more than a little crazy.

A fair minded historian would say that 'some of Hitlers professed beliefs were influenced by or taken from Christianity'. Not the same thing, and considerably more reasonable.

Except, of course, Hitler didn't see it as subversion. He believed he was restoring it to it's rightful place, like any other raging egomaniac might.

You could add that in a point on Hitler's mindset during a description of Hitlers subversion. This again is subtly different and considerably more fair.

Here you are doing what I suggested, and analysing Hitlers spiritual beliefs as part of their relevant input into his policies. It fits in very heavily with the 'cult leader' mentality Hitler had.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

There is no point in continuing this. You have a massively flawed understanding of what logic is.

I stated openly and factually that Hitlers commenataries were contradictory.
You said they were not contradictory because by logic they did not contradict each other at the same time.

You fail to grasp that in terms of human testimony a sequential contradiction is a contradiction as well as a simultaneous contradiction. This isnt sophistry, which is a fallacious argument its good logical thinking. Hitler said ths then then the opoposite later, thus his testimony is contradictory. There is nothing flawed, let alone massively in that thinking.

dogma wrote:
I suspect that its because you seemingly refuse to use the term correctly in order to lend credence to your position.

I gain credence for my position by pointing out to contradiction over time of Hitlers statements compounded with the evidence that Hitler was a po-faced liar who could not be trusted to mean what he publically said. History proves the latter to be true.

dogma wrote:
The fact that alternate elements may be involved does not indicate that logic is not useful, it indicates that the data from which we are working is imperfect. This is literally what I have been arguing this entire time, and why I have insisted on a highly open interpretation of any information cited.

Yet despite this supposed admission that the data (of quotes) we are working on is imperfect, you happily join the Hitler = Christian bandwagon accepting part of the dataset as some form of incontrovertable truth.

dogma wrote:
You, on the other hand, have argued restrictively while stating that a certain conclusion cannot be true due to some vague "ethos".

Nothing vague about it. Quoted chapter and verse. You might choose to deny it but thats a case of 'the evidence doesn't suit my prefered outcome, so let us ignore it'.
That carries no intellectual integrity.

dogma wrote:
To put it simply, again, you are finding clarity where it doesn't exist because you are filling the gaps in data with your "artistic logic" (read: aesthetic judgment) rather than admitting to your own necessary ignorance due to insufficient information.

I dont see clarity when it comes to Hitlers quotes, and have stated as such thoughout. They are contradictory comments from an an unreliable source.

I do see clairity from the Biblical source, by which we can see that Hitler cannot be defined as a Christian by someone with the authority to determine who is, in fact the only person who can determine who is. And yes the clarity does exist because its in print and commonly available.


Beasides if it was so clouded and a case where there was insufficient information, how could you come to a conclusion that Hitler was a Christian? We both have the same evidence, you appear to reject the only part of the evidence as to defining whether Hitler is a Christian that is clear on the subject (The Bible). Which is rather odd allowing for how vehemently you have concured with the dogma that Hitler = Christian.

Orlanth wrote:Pointless according to you. Not pointless according to the teachings of Jesus. Who is better fit to define Christianity, you or Jesus?

So that's it, is it? You're just going to dig your heels into the turf and so 'nuh nuh nuh nuh' and just pretend history cares one whit about who is a real Christian and merely thought they were? Because it's been explained to dozens of times now that the issue has never been, and will never be who is a real Christian, because that is simply a question that history has no interest in analysing.

But you don't want to get that. So you don't get that, no matter how obvious it is.

Sadlty your commentary is far from not inclusive or exhaustive. Where are the quotes on Islam I found, where did you quote and debunk quotes opposed to yours.

I only posted the quotes I offered in my first post. Before that I had explained why Table Talk was not a reliable source. If you want any of the rest, go back and re-read the thread.

There's really nothing to say about his comments on Islam. They're fairly reliable, I believe, but don't really mean anything in terms of the question in this thread. People can complement all kinds of faiths they don't belong to.

As stated I hold all quotes from Hitler as unreliable as to his motives, because they are contradictory and because he himself was unreliable as to any promise in his public life, which raises honest question as to whether any portion of what he said was a reliable indication of his true self. This standpoint is logical due the track record of unreliability of Hitlers promises of any kind and the inconsistency of what Hitler said anyway.

He gave religious justifications for actions where no such justification was needed. He did this while in absolute control of Germany. The only possible conclusion is that he did this because he believed in the Christian God.

Despite this you cling to one set of quotes, and reject others, without fair reason. Some of those who recorded quotes of Hitler knew him well, to dismiss part of the recorded evidence on the ground that it doesnt fit your conclusions is highly suspect thinking and betrays an inability to consider this issue openly and fairly.

The only quotes I've dismissed have been from the very dubious Hitler's Table Talk. That was the only set of quotes I said should be ignored. In other places I've been happy to credit quotes showing Hitler's contempt for the Church, such as in Speer's work. Go back and read the thread, and don't just make gak up.

Then pay attention to the substance of those quotes. Note that they are critical of church establishments, but not critical of the faith itself. Because...

They professed 'Christian beliefs', mixed in with a whole lot of other stuff, in both cases a of of Indian mysticism is thrown into the mix. Whether they believed any of it is up for question, very likely not due to the coomon pattern of sying what you want people to hear. Eventually many cult leaders do, beleive thier own teachings, but thats not as religion thats a psychosis. It's how a lot of cult leaders burn up, they get trapped into pretending so much they self identify. Koresh for example eventually began to claim he was Jesus. This does not make him a Christian.

Yes, so when a person was to say they were raised with Christian beliefs, and tied those beliefs into other religious concepts, and fused the whole lot into a whole pile of crazy then got a lot of people killed while still earnestly believing all of the above... we could be talking about Jones, Koresh or Hitler.

In a way its a bit like identity theft. If I stole your credit card, am I actually you? Of course not. Likewise while identification with central religious figures is an easy leg up.

No, but if you're delusional and actually believe you are me, it would be misleading to simply say 'he's not sebster' and leave it at that. Instead we'd say 'that crazy guy thought he was sebster'. Now consider the same in terms of Christianity. It would be misleading to say 'that crazy guy said a bunch of Christian things, then got loads of people killed' and a lot more truthful to say 'that crazy guy said a bunch of Christian things that he really believed, then got loads of people killed'.

And at no point during the writing of that book would the writer designate people as Christian or not depending on his or anyone else's view of how a good Christian should live. They were raised in Christian communities, they believed themselves Christian and so we call them such. We would likely note any weird or even heretical beliefs they might have, but we wouldn't deem anyone not Christian if they led an evil life.

Nevermind, big boys are speaking.

Orlanth wrote:
I stated openly and factually that Hitlers commenataries were contradictory.
You said they were not contradictory because by logic they did not contradict each other at the same time.

No, I said that they did not contradict each other. I made no mention of time, because time is not relevant.

Stop misrepresenting my position, if you are at all able to do so.

Orlanth wrote:
You fail to grasp that in terms of human testimony a sequential contradiction is a contradiction as well as a simultaneous contradiction.

No, that cannot be true because you have differentiated between the two "ideas".

This makes it appear ,again, as though you have no idea at all as to what logic really is.

Orlanth wrote:
Yet despite this supposed admission that the data (of quotes) we are working on is imperfect, you happily join the Hitler = Christian bandwagon accepting part of the dataset as some form of incontrovertable truth.

No, I've already stated that isn't my position. You're either not reading my posts, or you are being intentionally disingenuous. Personally, I suspect the latter, as I have very nearly no respect for you.

Orlanth wrote:
Nothing vague about it. Quoted chapter and verse. You might choose to deny it but thats a case of 'the evidence doesn't suit my prefered outcome, so let us ignore it'.
That carries no intellectual integrity.

No, you didn't do anything at all like you're describing. You've literally spent 4 pages talking about how the Bible was too complex to escape an "ethos".

Own up to your own words.

Orlanth wrote:
I dont see clarity when it comes to Hitlers quotes, and have stated as such thoughout. They are contradictory comments from an an unreliable source.

No, that isn't what you've said. You need to re-read your own words.

The length of your posts is truly epic lads.

None of you three play wow right?

(Mattyrm has a level 85 druid that is exhalted with 22 factions and is feared throughout the lands by his enemies)

mattyrm wrote:The length of your posts is truly epic lads.

None of you three play wow right?

(Mattyrm has a level 85 druid that is exhalted with 22 factions and is feared throughout the lands by his enemies)

Is he a Christian?

Ahtman wrote:

mattyrm wrote:The length of your posts is truly epic lads.

None of you three play wow right?

(Mattyrm has a level 85 druid that is exhalted with 22 factions and is feared throughout the lands by his enemies)

Is he a Christian?

Not if he kills things. Because the two are mutually incompatible, remember?

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Pointless according to you. Not pointless according to the teachings of Jesus. Who is better fit to define Christianity, you or Jesus?

So that's it, is it? You're just going to dig your heels into the turf and so 'nuh nuh nuh nuh' and just pretend history cares one whit about who is a real Christian and merely thought they were? Because it's been explained to dozens of times now that the issue has never been, and will never be who is a real Christian, because that is simply a question that history has no interest in analysing.

So you are repeatedly agreeing that Christian is a bad descriptor for him, yet insist on applying the label anyway.

sebster wrote:
I only posted the quotes I offered in my first post. Before that I had explained why Table Talk was not a reliable source. If you want any of the rest, go back and re-read the thread.

I did, and your argument is not convincing. Here it is:

sebster wrote:
The book being relied on by the website you listed, Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944, is widely, almost completely disregarded by serious historians. There are no supporting documents for any of the quotes given, and in many instances we know them to be complete fabrications, because Hitler was known to be an entirely different place at the time of the supposed quote. It is a work of fiction, that was written with the specific political goal of distancing Hitler from Christianity.

The actual, reliable quotes from Hitler that we do have paint a very different picture;

From Mein Kampf;
"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.." ..ff..

I will give you that quotes from Mein Kampf can be taken as from Hitler. However as that was a book of rabble rousing and paranoia designed for the mass market from someone who was totally unrelaible as to his commentary then I would hold very loosly to anything that is said there. What you have is proof that Hitler played to the crowd.
Furthermore Mein Kampf mentions god intermittently, as soundbites. Were Hitler driven by religious fanaticism the religious aspect might be prevelant throughout, wheras any old politician might drop God insomewhere, and from what we known of political speechcraft and manifesto writing this is often done.

As for dismissing Table Talk out of hand I had as good look into the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Table_Talk Wiki covers this one well.


- The book being relied on by the website you listed, Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944,

Note to other readers Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 and Hitler's Table Talk are one and the same.

- is widely, almost completely disregarded by serious historians.

Sounds like we should avoid this book then. Hold one, no it isnt. It's disregarded by one historian. Let us see who.

Richard Carrier doesn't appear to be an impartial source and isn't backed up by anyone else. I can go as far as to say the work has been challenged, however I hold value to anything Hitler is reported to have said lightly for other well founded reasons anyway.
Your opinion however is very direct, completely negating the value iof ther book and claiming an illusory weight of historical persepctive in doing so. The 'almost completely disregarded by serious historians' bit is a gross distortion in order to fit your own chronic bias.

- There are no supporting documents for any of the quotes given,

Actually there are, and some historians have claimed to have seen them. Trevor-Roper for one, David Irving for another, and while david Irving has a taint to him his views are pretty much diametrically opposed to Trevor-Roper, so we have two people as examples right here of people from widely different personal views of the Third Reich agreeing.

- and in many instances we know them to be complete fabrications, because Hitler was known to be an entirely different place at the time of the supposed quote.

Citation needed. Also a mix up over dates might not be a fabrication as you insist but a simple error of labelling by Bormann while cataloguing the quotes.

- It is a work of fiction

Even the one historian who put his name to a critique of the book doesn't go that far. He challenged the authenticity in parts.

- that was written with the specific political goal of distancing Hitler from Christianity.

Trevor-Roper was not that kind of writer. Had he been a blatant propoganda writer as you imply it would have shown through in his other works, and there would be personal conroversy over it. Now there was a controversy over Trevor Roper, but much later, he got egg on his face when he was taken in the the Hitler Diaries.

It's interesting that the viewpoints of the book have been corroborated by eye witnesses that survived the war including Hitlers secretary Traudl Junge.


Sebster, I believe you latch onto the opportunity to question Table Talk from some perspectives and magnify that into an excuse to dismiss all contents to paint a very biased picture and to deny evidence that does not fit your prefered beifs, even though they do better fit Hitler's known actions.

sebster wrote:
There's really nothing to say about his comments on Islam. They're fairly reliable, I believe, but don't really mean anything in terms of the question in this thread. People can complement all kinds of faiths they don't belong to.

Good, now apply that to Hitler and Christianity.
Hitler complimented Christianity in some of the faiths, and he clearly didnt belong to them.

sebster wrote:
He gave religious justifications for actions where no such justification was needed. He did this while in absolute control of Germany. The only possible conclusion is that he did this because he believed in the Christian God.

Sorry that is a poor response betraying ignorance of how political power works. Even while in absolute control one still needs justification for control to be retained.
The better conclusion - that Hitler was saying what he wanted the masses to hear still remain, is far more likely.

I will leave it there for now.

I think we're probably best off leaving it there. I think everyone who's still interested has articulated their positions clearly and in detail.

Anyone who has sufficient interest in the source material can research Hitler's Table Talk AKA Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 and determine whether they think it is a credible source or not, and whether the statements made in it are at significant variance with Hitler's statements everywhere else in the public record.

Orlanth maintains that if a person does not live their life in clear and unambiguous accordance with Christian teachings, they cannot be labeled a Christian by historians. Others disagree.

Adolf Hitler's true religious beliefs are always going to be a matter of inference from his writings and speeches, and always going to be a subject of controversy. Some Christians have a vested personal interest in distancing their religion from Hitler or other people who do evil in its name, just as some Muslims try to distance their religion from people who do evil in its name, and likewise for any other faith claimed by an evil or disreputable person.

We agree that neither Christianity nor Islam (nor any other religion, really) supports or justifies atrocities committed in its name, but we recognize that human beings frequently believe contradictory things, and that many people throughout history have proclaimed a faith in a given religion while justifying horrible acts that would seem to a reasonable and rational person to be entirely contrary to that religion.

I think we're going in circles, at this point, so I'm putting it to bed.