Was Hitler a christian? and atheist morallity

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeap: A True Christian can't do bad Things. Hitler did bad Things. Hitler is nor a true Christian.

The claim is not incoherent or illogical - if a Christian is one who follows Christ and Christ preaches non violence then one who does violence does not follow Christ.

The perceived problem is that this argument is circular - but that is not a problem unless you are trying to define a Christian as a perfect adherent of Christ's teachings.

In Hitler's case you need to ask why he did what he did - did he kill Jews because he believed they killed Christ or because he believed they were biologically inferior and represented a threat to his Master Race because they were a pestilence, like rats?

[Brenus]

“Hitler was not a christian because he did not follow the bible/ trust jesus as savior. Because he hated christian as his own word say, his worldview was against the bible and was all about survival of the fittest.” It is your interpretation.
Hitler insisted he has to do it as Christian. You may decide that he was not, but I will give him credit of what HE publicly said, not what others having a lot to be forgiven for said he said.
What he said is “(For example, he said, on signing the Nazi-Vatican Concordat, April 26, 1933): "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . .". Not bad for an atheist…
“In a speech at Koblenz, August 26, 1934, Hitler said: "National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity . . . For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life . . . These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!"
“In addition, in 1941, Hitler told General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

[Montmorency]

Bad form in the interpretation of historical sources.

All that shows is that Hitler referred to himself as a Christian, and so likely considered himself to be one, and so likely could not have been an atheist. I could call myself a Christian, though, even though I have no belief in the divinity of Jesus or the existence of an Abrahamic God. I could appropriate the label to myself.

As someone who ostensibly is such an empiricist, you ought to have an interest in sorting out belief - "interpretation" - from the empirical and semantic reality.

[Brenus]

“Bad form in the interpretation of historical sources.” In this passage, I don’t “interpret” historical sources. I quote them. Hitler said he was a Christian, so until proven he left or was excommunicated he was. No room for interpretation here.

“All that shows is that Hitler referred to himself as a Christian, and so likely considered himself to be one”, Indeed. But he was baptised, went in Churches and was never excommunicated. So he was a Christian. A good one? According to you no, but remember that all his anti-Semitic speeches were aim at Christian crowds and were, as we know, not rejected that much.

“I could appropriate the label to myself.” Not a problem, but why do you think Hitler would do the same? Perhaps he was convinced to be a Christian. And who are we to deny him the right to be? Because he is Hitler?

“you ought to have an interest in sorting out belief - "interpretation" - from the empirical and semantic reality.” I don’t need to in this example, as I am just quoting Hitler. When Hitler stated “I am now a Catholic (Christian) and will always remain so”, can you show me the room for a “belief” and “semantic reality”?

[Montmorency]

It is absolutely an interpretation to take the words of a primary source and conclude that they must in and of themselves must be conclusive. And it is bad form to take a source at its word with no further analysis.

And who are we to deny him the right to be? Because he is Hitler?

Who are you to deny me the right to be a Christian?

If there is a certain definition of "Christian" to which we will choose to adhere in the course of a discussion (though that isn't to say that we have settled upon one here), then "historical facts" must be compared to that definition. Perhaps Hitler Christian considered himself a Christian, sure. But I'm not so sure that most would accept a definition like, "Whoever calls himself a Christian is a Christian. Amen." This thread isn't over whether Hitler thought himself a Christian, but whether he was indeed one.

Think of the Arians. They considered themselves to be Christians. The Orthodoxy did not consider them as such. Depending on what we do and do not choose to call Christianity or term as falling within it scope, we could today consider them either way. See my point? That's what I mean by semantic reality.

Great point

Oh nooooo...

[Papewaio]

Church is a club for sinners.
Hitler was one of the worst sinners.
Therefore Hitler could join the club.

=][=

Considering in the quote he is rallying against communism and atheism one can readily assume Hitler was not an atheist. Hitler would be in the same category as some as the violent fringe Christians who believe they are so right that they can hurl abuse at soldiers funerals, shoot doctors they disagree with or show gods love to underage boys. Until they are excommunicated, scorned, sent to the law and have their support bases turn from them I'm inclined to believe by emperical evidence that their actions are supported by the wider Christian community.

So instead of casting stones based on a lack of evidence get your own houses in order.

If the hypothesis was that Hitler was an atheist and ergo all atheist must take responsibility for his actions.

In My Dishonorable Opinion not so humbly belive that the same brush can be used to paint up a black and yellow hazard line on the beam in ones eye.

The hypothesis should be able to be applied that a random official of the Church has done wrong therefore all members of the Church must be responsible.

Since there is a whole weight of evidence that shows priests have buggered young boys, that the church's have covered up and hounded the victims and only under immense public pressure slightly admitted there might be an issue. That this weigh of empirical evidence far out ways the evidence in favour of Hitler being an atheist.

So where is the outrage and the rising up against such crimes in the church? When young people can be raped by people in authority and the blame placed on the victims and systematically covered up. Where is the voice of the moderates of the church against these crimes. I don't see or hear them actively campaigning, they leave it to the victims, the families of the deceased and external parties.

So why can't I say that all Christians are tainted? It seems to be the long shot that is drawn on Hitler and others being atheists used to blame atheists in general. It is also the same thinking used repeatedly to demonise Muslims, the repeated cry of "I don't see the moderates rising against the extremists."

Yet here we have wealthy individuals by world standards, who are part of the majority belief system in their countries, who are educated and upstanding individuals. Yet I don't see a million person march against predatory priests.

Why not use the same standards to tar and feather atheists and Muslims?

Because that would be the act of a moron. Crimes belong must often to an individual. Acts of conspiracy belong to the individuals in the group. What is distasteful is the silent support of the powerful, the craven way we humans will close together to protect 'our own' even when they go against our own internal moral compass or the lettered law of the group. But that is a fault in all human groups.

[total relism]

“Hitler was not a christian because he did not follow the bible/ trust jesus as savior. Because he hated christian as his own word say, his worldview was against the bible and was all about survival of the fittest.” It is your interpretation.
Hitler insisted he has to do it as Christian. You may decide that he was not, but I will give him credit of what HE publicly said, not what others having a lot to be forgiven for said he said.
What he said is “(For example, he said, on signing the Nazi-Vatican Concordat, April 26, 1933): "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . .". Not bad for an atheist…
“In a speech at Koblenz, August 26, 1934, Hitler said: "National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity . . . For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life . . . These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!"
“In addition, in 1941, Hitler told General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

As I sated before, you have a hitler who contradicts himself if he claims on time to be christian and not another time. I can make sense of that back on post 127. You cannot claiming he was christian. No problem that he would early on claim to be publically, that was whole point. The only quote above that would be relevant would be the 41 quote, please provide wider context for this.


In fact I did quick search, it appears that your reference is not even a valid source, not considered genuine.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/Hitler/Miller301204.html


On a atheist site claiming he was catholic, they post this

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude."

Now assuming its genuine, this makes perfect sense. Read my post 127. See if this "christian" is referring to the bible, or the nazi bible/propaganda they promoted to get people on there side.

Bad form in the interpretation of historical sources.

All that shows is that Hitler referred to himself as a Christian, and so likely considered himself to be one, and so likely could not have been an atheist. I could call myself a Christian, though, even though I have no belief in the divinity of Jesus or the existence of an Abrahamic God. I could appropriate the label to myself.

As someone who ostensibly is such an empiricist, you ought to have an interest in sorting out belief - "interpretation" - from the empirical and semantic reality.

Great point, that killer in norway that shot like 77 kids was a "christian" and said of himself to be one. yet in his writing he clarified he was only culturally christian not a true christian.

Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister.
1 john 4

[Kralizec]

The claim is not incoherent or illogical - if a Christian is one who follows Christ and Christ preaches non violence then one who does violence does not follow Christ.

The perceived problem is that this argument is circular - but that is not a problem unless you are trying to define a Christian as a perfect adherent of Christ's teachings.

In Hitler's case you need to ask why he did what he did - did he kill Jews because he believed they killed Christ or because he believed they were biologically inferior and represented a threat to his Master Race because they were a pestilence, like rats?

Do you fire a series of questions at someone regarding his/her beliefs, and the consistency of those beliefs, when somebody says he/she is a christian?

I usually take their word for it. "Christian" is, for all intents and purposes, a self-described identity.

[Montmorency]

I usually take their word for it. "Christian" is, for all intents and purposes, a self-described identity.

Ah, but you hold a preconceived notion of what that means, what it entails. You do not make room in your presumption for the possibility that the individual self-describing as Christian might just believe that Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his Prophet.

Would you really accept such an individual as Christian? Don't labels become meaningless if they have infinite scope?

Do you fire a series of questions at someone regarding his/her beliefs, and the consistency of those beliefs, when somebody says he/she is a christian?

I'll bet he smirks internally and thinks, "I'll believe it when I see it."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Until they are excommunicated, scorned, sent to the law and have their support bases turn from them I'm inclined to believe by emperical evidence that their actions are supported by the wider Christian community.

I'm sorry?

Maybe you missed the memo on demographics - the child molesting, doctor shooting, gay hating and sodomising, crowd are a tiny fringe of the roughly 2 billion Christians on the planet.

I'll bet he smirks internally and thinks, "I'll believe it when I see it."

I assume this is intended to be a swipe at me, as I think I'm the only "true" Christian?

Clearly, you haven't been paying attention for the last half-decade.

[Papewaio]

I'm sorry?

Maybe you missed the memo on demographics - the child molesting, doctor shooting, gay hating and sodomising, crowd are a tiny fringe of the roughly 2 billion Christians on the planet.

First I align myself with the premise and the requirement for an empirical data set.

I then change the hypothesis from Hitler = Atheist therefore atheists are responsible.

I then apply the hypothesis to Christian figure heads. Come to the conclusion that since the moderates aren't doing anything then they must also be in agreement. The main reason to do this is to put the shoes on the other foot and gain an emphatic foothold. When people have the same level of reasoning applied to their ideas/family/beliefs/faith they quite often quickly and correctly see how absurd it is to apply that reasoning to "them" the faceless others who have different idea/family/beliefs/faith.

So after following the argument down the path of the pariah in the shoes of the Christian what do I state in my concluding paragraph?

Does it look like I am for or against group thunk and group punishment, or maybe I think it should be individual responsibility for individual actions? I am critical of group us vs them and how we divide ourselves and over protect our own. But do I attribute this herd mentality to any one group or to humans in general?

[Montmorency]

Clearly, you haven't been paying attention for the last half-decade.

I only became active here a year ago.

Not necessarily that you think you're the only true Christian, but that you would have a high standard that few could meet. I feel like I've picked up at least that much about you...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I only became active here a year ago.

Not necessarily that you think you're the only true Christian, but that you would have a high standard that few could meet. I feel like I've picked up at least that much about you...

...because Christians set standards they think they can live up to?

No.

Try learning about my religion - even HoreTore and Kadagar know I don't live up to my own ideals.

[Brenus]

“This thread isn't over whether Hitler thought himself a Christian, but whether he was indeed one.” Well, let’s face what we know:
Hitler was Baptised in the Catholic Branch of Christianity. Catholics are Christian aren’t they?
You can renounce your baptism, Hitler never did.
Hitler said in public meeting he was a Catholic several times.
He was never excommunicated.
So he was a Catholic, Christian.

I do understand that Hitler doesn’t fit in the values you want for Christianity. But the facts point that he was a Christian.

[Montmorency]

You're begging the question again.

But let's go from your definition - 'whoever has been baptized and not excommunicated is Christian'.

In that case, once baptised , always a Christian - unless excommunicated. It's a convenient one, I suppose. An excommunicated individual loses all connection to God, and can not reforge one without papal approval. Such an individual could at the pope's lack of grace perish a heathen, to be sorted with the other unconverted heathens. I'm sure this is a notion the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages would have loved to see held dearly.

This is clearly an inadequate definition, but by this - yes, Hitler would have been a Christian.

I do understand that Hitler doesn’t fit in the values you want for Christianity.

Don't get the wrong idea.

[Sir Moody]

seems this is appropriate right now...



sorry about the Russian sub but I couldn't track down a version without it...

[Brenus]

"In that case, once baptised , always a Christian - unless excommunicated." Or if you renounce to be a Christian. And if the case of Hitler, there is no evidence he did.

[Kralizec]

You do not make room in your presumption for the possibility that the individual self-describing as Christian might just believe that Allah is the only God and Mohammed is his Prophet.

Would you really accept such an individual as Christian? Don't labels become meaningless if they have infinite scope?

That would be a rather silly person, right?

A lot of people call themselves christian while they don't believe (often don't know) its basic tenets. Besides, there isn't even consensus on what those basic tenets are. A lot of protestants and catholics don't consider Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons to be christians. And some nutty protestants don't even consider catholics to be real christians.

I'm sorry?

Maybe you missed the memo on demographics - the child molesting, doctor shooting, gay hating and sodomising, crowd are a tiny fringe of the roughly 2 billion Christians on the planet.

The 2 billion figure refers to nominal christians. As soon as you come up with criteria beyond what the person calls himself you'll never reach that number.