Does it Matter that Hitler was a Theist?

[1robin]

You see that? that used to be a perfectly functional irony meter.

I hope you are proud :cover:

If nothing else at least your version of the tired old irony meter poster is original. I must have seen the old exploding one used a thousand times in place of arguments that could not be made by the poster. Actually my description of evolution right or wrong, is far more complex than yours and so it was a fail anyway but nice picture.

 

[Me Myself]

That was dealt with in about two posts. Hitler was a superficial theist

Superficial? not at all o.o

 

[Me Myself]

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfilment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence."-Hitler

 

[1robin]

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence."-Hitler

Please pay close attention to this as it has been said many times and is available in a thousand places. I am an amateur military historian. What Hitler did concerning Catholicism was specifically to gain the considerable influence the Church wielded. He needed their influence with the masses and he played the game until it became apparent to him that they were not buying it in general and then he turned on them with a vengeance.
Here is IMO hos it works.
Hitler wanted to do X. X was a selfish delusional concept and so he had to justify it somehow.
1. He claimed that X was done for God even though it was done for Hitler.
2. He justified the methods by which to do X by the implications of evolution.
He did nothing for God and he justified it by desiring it however that does not sell so he invented 1 and 2 above.

Hitler had more faith in the theology produced by Wagner's ring cycle than any actual religion.

 

[1robin]

Methinks, this thread may have devolved into some variation on the fallacy of appealing to nature.

That sounds like the fallacy of appealing to reality. This is a new one on me and I will check it out. I thought I had finally heard them all.

 

[LuisDantas]

Please pay close attention to this as it has been said many times and is available in a thousand places. I am an amateur military historian. What Hitler did concerning Catholicism was specifically to gain the considerable influence the Church wielded. He needed their influence with the masses and he played the game until it became apparent to him that they were not buying it in general and then he turned on them with a vengeance.
Here is IMO hos it works.
Hitler wanted to do X. X was a selfish delusional concept and so he had to justify it somehow.
1. He claimed that X was done for God even though it was done for Hitler.
2. He justified the methods by which to do X by the implications of evolution.
He did nothing for God and he justified it by desiring it however that does not sell so he invented 1 and 2 above.

Hitler had more faith in the theology produced by Wagner's ring cycle than any actual religion.

How would you know that? Is there any evidence?

 

[1robin]

It really wasn't.

Uh HUH.

Then why did you derail the thread with it?

I do not think that was my choice or at least my intention. However I no longer care, and it is no longer relevant. Hello storm.

 

[Storm]

Uh HUH.

I hate to break it to you, but your proclamations aren't the final word.

 

[1robin]

How would you know that? Is there any evidence?

Of which claim? I can supply his quotes concerning his use of evolution to justify his actions. We could examine his actions and see if they are consistent with the faith that he is said to have a sincere agreement with. Or we could read any of about a thousand authors that all say what I did. The superficiality of his faith is a historical concensus.

 

[1robin]

I hate to break it to you, but your proclamations aren't the final word.

UH HUH. BY the way I just realised your original statement was "No it wasn't" which violated your own complaint. Typical.

Actually the tactic of asserting something in absence of any proof for it is so often used by my opponents I thought I would try it out. The issues are too obvious to demand more than two posts but if you actually believe Hitler was a sincere Catholic then I will discuss it, but I can't take proving 2 + 2 = 4 any more today and am leaving. Have a good afternoon.

 

[Storm]

Of which claim? I can supply his quotes concerning his use of evolution to justify his actions. We could examine his actions and see if they are consistent with the faith that he is said to have a sincere agreement with. Or we could read any of about a thousand authors that all say what I did. The superficiality of his faith is a historical concensus.

We could do the same for your claim he was a Socialist.

 

[Storm]

UH HUH.

Actually the tactic of asserting something in absence of any proof for it is so often used by my opponents I thought I would try it out. The issues are too obvious to demand more than two posts but if you actually believe Hitler was a sincere Catholic then I will discuss it, but I can't take proving 2 + 2 = 4 any more today and am leaving. Have a good afternoon.

No, I don't believe he was a sincere Catholic. I think he was a raging nutjob and none of his claims should be taken seriously. That doesn't mean his theism was superficial, however.

 

[1robin]

We could do the same for your claim he was a Socialist.

Who is we? Please re-read my post for two reasons. One being that I said I would do so, the other being your double standards. Bye.

 

[Storm]

Who is we? Please re-read my post for two reasons. One being that I said I would do so, the other being your double standards. Bye.

That's twice you've said goodbye dishonestly. Seems more like a passive aggressive attempt to get me to leave than anything honest on your part.

At any rate, I have no intention of reading your tripe again, and I'm not the one displaying double standards.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of which claim? I can supply his quotes concerning his use of evolution to justify his actions.

That could be a good idea. I have no doubt that he finds nothing from the actual ToE to use, for there IS nothing.

We could examine his actions and see if they are consistent with the faith that he is said to have a sincere agreement with.

We certainly could. But that would mean very little. Not too many Catholics are consistent with their own faith in the first place.

And, of course, Hitler was nuts. There is that. But a theist nutjob is still a theist.

Or we could read any of about a thousand authors that all say what I did. The superficiality of his faith is a historical concensus.

From whom, I wonder?

 

[Dingbat]

Who is we? Please re-read my post for two reasons. One being that I said I would do so, the other being your double standards. Bye.

Your "knowledge" and "ideas" of history make me cry anyways. I haven't seen worst tripe, well outside of Above Top Secret. No Historian worth their salt has ever confirmed any of the garbage you stated in this thread. Though thanks to ignorance it does keep my academic field alive and well. So I guess I should thank you.

 

[1robin]

That's twice you've said goodbye dishonestly. Seems more like a passive aggressive attempt to get me to leave than anything honest on your part.

No it is not. I never said "goodbye" and I only said bye once and who cares. How did this observation advance the discussion at all.

At any rate, I have no intention of reading your tripe again, and I'm not the one displaying double standards.

Nor did you the first time apparently. Nice vent, terrible scholarship.

 

[1robin]

Your "knowledge" and "ideas" of history make me cry anyways. I haven't seen worst tripe, well outside of Above Top Secret.

That was constructive. This seems the day for venting the general frustration felt for life to the exclusion of actually making relevant claims.

No Historian worth their salt has ever confirmed any of the garbage you stated in this thread.

I have read at least 50 books that mention Hitler's character. I have six books and 3 video biographic documentaries on the shelf in From of me. Not a single one has ever suggested Hitler was a sincere Catholic. I do not know where you get you dredge up your scholars but reality would be the last place I would expect to find them. It also appears the word "tripe" was suggested at the last meeting of the historical revisionists meeting.

Though thanks to ignorance it does keep my academic field alive and well. So I guess I should thank you.

Exactly which field of academia is it that you created? I would bet you can't find 10% of the scholars that claim Hitler was a devoted and sincere Catholic than I can that say he was simply opportunistic and his actions bear nothing beyond a superficial intellectual consent to a theological philosophy. Make it worth the effort and we will compare lists or simply keep making assertions without justification. That seems to be par for the course.

For the record it is scholars that suggest Hitler held and practiced a genuine Catholic faith against scholars that imply his "faith" was simply convenient and he never seriously followed it's precepts. If I am only half as wrong as you assert, you should jump at the chance.

 

[1robin]

That could be a good idea. I have no doubt that he finds nothing from the actual ToE to use, for there IS nothing.

Well hello Luis, your civil post is a welcome relief from the sarcasm fest of the last few posts. If you want a few I will get them from my other computer tomorrow and we can see. Please keep in mind two things.
1. I do not claim he did what he did because of evolution. He did it for power and money, and to vent his hate. I do claim as he did, that he justified his actions by evolutionary priciples.

We certainly could. But that would mean very little. Not too many Catholics are consistent with their own faith in the first place.

That is true but I mean a whole different level than being apathetic, or lukewarm. I meant the Bibles says do not murder yet he is responsible for 50 million unjustified deaths. I mean the Bible says that the Jews are God's chosen people and he lined up and gassed to death milllions of them. That is a little different that not going to mass today or not tything.

And, of course, Hitler was nuts. There is that. But a theist nutjob is still a theist.

In this same thread I pointed out that evolutionists were using a hyper literal intepretation of the word "evolution" based on no other reason but convenience. I think you are using the term "theist" in a hyper liberal sence. Simply sitting in a Church a time or two, wearing a cross, or even saying a person is a christian has no power to make them so. With theism it is a little less clear. Theism implies a deity with power, will, capability and who is personal (benevolent interest). In other words he would be very similar to the God of the bible and being that he chose Catholicism (for non religous reasons) then if he believed in a God like I described then the God of the Bible is either him or acts just like the God that Hitler alluded to. The issue was he actually commited to Catholicism or was he of those that attach themselves to it for personal gain. I think History is clear that whetever theology was present in his life it was to serve Hitler and not the other way around as it should be. Summary at the most Hitler had a superficial attachment to Catholocism in the attempt to influce the power the Church held in Germany. When he was rebuffed he did a 180 and rejected them completely

From whom, I wonder?

If you sincerecly desire good works that mention Hitlers false religous professions. Being that you are a very civl I would be will to debate this issue in detail iy find it woth the effor.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well hello Luis, your civil post is a welcome relief from the sarcasm fest of the last few posts. If you want a few I will get them from my other computer tomorrow and we can see. Please keep in mind two things.
1. I do not claim he did what he did because of evolution. He did it for power and money, and to vent his hate. I do claim as he did, that he justified his actions by evolutionary priciples.

Actually, I wonder why you even bother. But let's see.

That is true but I mean a whole different level than being apathetic, or lukewarm. I meant the Bibles says do not murder yet he is responsible for 50 million unjustified deaths.

So? Do you want a list of those (including explicit Creationists) who started wars? The Bible is hardly a statement against murder.

I mean the Bible says that the Jews are God's chosen people and he lined up and gassed to death milllions of them.

And he found support in the Bible. And, more to the point, millions failed to find fault in his allegiances of divine support. Historical record shows that religious authorities worked with him, even.

That is a little different that not going to mass today or not tything.

No doubt. But a grossly criminal theist is no less a theist for that.

I can't help but wonder if you would feel ok with me deciding which priests (Christian and otherwise) are superficial theists because I feel disgusted by their actions and morality. Even if you did, pretty soon I would be in a crusade for discrediting priests without even planning to.

That might well turn out to be a good idea, come to think of that. Yet to this day people are oddly selective and reluctant to do that, despite plenty of good reasons to. Hitler was hardly the last of the nutjob Christian politicians with a taste for destruction.

In this same thread I pointed out that evolutionists were using a hyper literal intepretation of the word "evolution" based on no other reason but convenience.

That is beyond odd. Evolution, in the sense established by Darwin and used by biology, is not subject to "literal interpretations". It is not religious dogma.

Either you are building a strawman (or worse) or you met one and failed to recognize it. In either case I recommend learning what the ToE actually is.

I think you are using the term "theist" in a hyper liberal sence.

It is not my place to decide that people only think that they believe in God, now is it?

Simply sitting in a Church a time or two, wearing a cross, or even saying a person is a christian has no power to make them so.

Out of curiosity, how many Christians would you estimate to exist worldwide by such criteria? Does having an extra-marital affair make one not a Christian? Does actual diagnosed schyzophrenia? Support for a needless war under false pretenses? Bearing false witness?

Are you actually encouraging me to decide that people are not real Christians due to their lack of supposedly Christian values? And to state my convictions on the matter openly?

If so, then I strongly suspect that we will soon be arriving at a scenario where Atheism is, in fact, the mark of the moral man, since he is at least honest with himself and coherent with his stated values.

With theism it is a little less clear. Theism implies a deity with power, will, capability and who is personal (benevolent interest). In other words he would be very similar to the God of the bible and being that he chose Catholicism (for non religous reasons)

All of that is arguable at best, particularly the belief that whoever you are talking about (Hitler?) somehow chose Catholicism for non religious reasons.

How would you even know? And with which authority? How does it overcome his actual stated beliefs and his behavior that supports them?

then if he believed in a God like I described then the God of the Bible is either him or acts just like the God that Hitler alluded to.[/quot]

Or maybe there is no God except those that people conceive in their minds.

The issue was he actually commited to Catholicism or was he of those that attach themselves to it for personal gain.

The distinction is subtle and at least arguably non-existent, you know. Seeking release from anguish and a path for hope is both legitimate and a form of personal gain. It is also what most sincere Catholics do, as well as what Hitler explicitly did.

In fact, it was his political plataform.

If you disagree with that analysis, then it falls upon you to establish whether there is any difference between the two choices, how pronounced such a difference is, and how to distinguish them.

I think History is clear that whetever theology was present in his life it was to serve Hitler and not the other way around as it should be.

History may perhaps be clear on the matter, but that means that History has the power to disregard specific theologies as destructive (which maybe it should have). I don't think we are quite there yet.

On the other hand, Hitler did present his crusade as theologically-driven, and I don't think a good case has been made that he was insincere. Power mad, sure, but not insincere.

More to the point, if you are going to give yourself the power to decide that Hitler was not a true Christian but only a make pretend one, why stop with him? Are Christians who oppose gay marriage true Christians, for instance?

Who decides, with which authority, and how open should they be with their judgements?

A good case can be made that it is a good thing to make such judgements. But, you know, Christians are often reluctant to engage in such an activity, going so far as to remind people of Matthew 7 to discourage that activity.

Interestingly enough, Matthew 7 does not actually disapprove of judgement, although it does warn that it may be returned. Yet many people seem to forget that and see it as a generic disapproval of judgement even while they are judgemental Christians themselves.

You know, I feel that we are coming closer to answering Sunstone's questions from the OP.

Summary at the most Hitler had a superficial attachment to Catholocism in the attempt to influce the power the Church held in Germany.

Or, perhaps more naturally, he was one among so many hate-filled nutjobs that present themselves as Catholics and are hardly if even called on the matter. There is definitely no evidence that he was insincere.

When he was rebuffed he did a 180 and rejected them completely

Did that happen at all? Do you have some date or reference?

If you sincerecly desire good works that mention Hitlers false religous professions. Being that you are a very civl I would be will to debate this issue in detail iy find it woth the effor.

Maybe it is, but I doubt you will enjoy my conclusions.