Does it Matter that Hitler was a Theist?

[oldbadger]

Now and then one or another person on this board has raised Hitler's religious beliefs as evidence for...what? Does it matter that Hitler seems to have believed in a god? Was his belief in deity at all significant to what he did? Do you think it would have changed anything if he had been less religious -- perhaps even an atheist? Why or why not?

Hi! Please excuse me underling part of your post. Seems?

Ok... so I think that Hitler was an atheist. Somebody wrote (earlier) that I would get a history lesson on this thread but that hasn't happened. Just because a young person was an altar boy, and regular church goer doesn't make him a christian. I knew a woman who loved going to church, and loved the rituals and strange services in latin, which she could not understand but could repeat perfectly. She stopped going when Irish Catholicism changed over to English (in her church, anyway). Said it didn't feel 'strange' anymore!

It is said that Hitler learned to hate the Jews through bible study. What rubbish! He loved the family doctor dearly, who was a jew. And where did he learn a need to dispose of untermensch, handicapped children, Jehovah's witnesses, gypsies and (probably) many other groups? Hitler wanted to created a whole world that worshipped himself..... no room for any God!

People now say that the Vatican helped him. That's like saying that a bank teller certainly robbed when he passed the money to the gunman! Crazy! The Vatican was surrounded and 'knew' that it could soon be extinguished just as soon as Hitler felt strong enough. Hitler's God was Hitler. I don't accept a crazed psychopath's word that he believed in anything at all.

And going to services does not certainly make a theist. When I was a kid I remember whole families going off to church because 'you had to be seen in church'...... poor sorry sad folks!

No... Hitler was a Hitlerist, and if he was working with evolution, then it was ultimately 'evolution' that finished him and his nasty crew off.

 

[Dingbat]

Hi! Please excuse me underling part of your post. Seems?

Ok... so I think that Hitler was an atheist. Somebody wrote (earlier) that I would get a history lesson on this thread but that hasn't happened. Just because a young person was an altar boy, and regular church goer doesn't make him a christian. I knew a woman who loved going to church, and loved the rituals and strange services in latin, which she could not understand but could repeat perfectly. She stopped going when Irish Catholicism changed over to English (in her church, anyway). Said it didn't feel 'strange' anymore!

It is said that Hitler learned to hate the Jews through bible study. What rubbish! He loved the family doctor dearly, who was a jew. And where did he learn a need to dispose of untermensch, handicapped children, Jehovah's witnesses, gypsies and (probably) many other groups? Hitler wanted to created a whole world that worshipped himself..... no room for any God!

People now say that the Vatican helped him. That's like saying that a bank teller certainly robbed when he passed the money to the gunman! Crazy! The Vatican was surrounded and 'knew' that it could soon be extinguished just as soon as Hitler felt strong enough. Hitler's God was Hitler. I don't accept a crazed psychopath's word that he believed in anything at all.

And going to services does not certainly make a theist. When I was a kid I remember whole families going off to church because 'you had to be seen in church'...... poor sorry sad folks!

No... Hitler was a Hitlerist, and if he was working with evolution, then it was ultimately 'evolution' that finished him and his nasty crew off.

Indeed, the book Hitler's Table Talk which is a compilation of notes from his personal secretaries of conversations eliminates any idea that Hitler believed in any kind of deity. He lambasts Christianity throughout conversations that focus on religion. Hitler was Hitler's biggest fan though the man did have a thing for mysticism but nothing really serious.

The problem with Hitler is you never get a real good portrait of the man. His followers tout him as a Savior of Germany. His detractors paint him the ultimate villain. Even his OSS psychological profile is rubbish due to it being solely compiled by talking to people who were his political opponents. The only interesting thing in the entire profile is the belief he had strange sexual fetishes but no proof is ever given and it is never corroborated by the plethora of women he left behind. The only things I ever read were that he was pushy towards women and when denied would have fits of rage.

Then you look at his sister's account and she paints a portrait of a young man who cared for his siblings but detested his father and would stand up against him. He would even take the blame for his siblings mistakes in order to absorb beatings. I always did feel a bit of sympathy for Hitler's sister has she seemed to always struggle in interviews to connect Hitler the boy she knew and Hitler the sociopathic demagogue who slaughtered millions and decimated Europe.

 

[Straw Dog]

Now and then one or another person on this board has raised Hitler's religious beliefs as evidence for...what? Does it matter that Hitler seems to have believed in a god? Was his belief in deity at all significant to what he did? Do you think it would have changed anything if he had been less religious -- perhaps even an atheist? Why or why not?

Hitler was also once an aspiring artist. Perhaps if his talent was encouraged, he would have taken a different path. We could've just been talking about an angst artist right now rather than a mass murderer. The pivot in different paths in subtle.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi! Please excuse me underling part of your post. Seems?

Ok... so I think that Hitler was an atheist.

Why would you think so? An insincere or unbalanced theist, I can see. But is there anything suggesting that he was an atheist?

Somebody wrote (earlier) that I would get a history lesson on this thread but that hasn't happened. Just because a young person was an altar boy, and regular church goer doesn't make him a christian. I knew a woman who loved going to church, and loved the rituals and strange services in latin, which she could not understand but could repeat perfectly. She stopped going when Irish Catholicism changed over to English (in her church, anyway). Said it didn't feel 'strange' anymore!

It is said that Hitler learned to hate the Jews through bible study. What rubbish! He loved the family doctor dearly, who was a jew.

Racists often make exceptions for specific people. It is an important part of their self-justification, even.

And where did he learn a need to dispose of untermensch, handicapped children, Jehovah's witnesses, gypsies and (probably) many other groups?

Uh... in the Bible, perhaps?

It certainly has enough passages justifying violence and hatred, going all the way back to Moses acting very Hitler-like in Numbers 31.

Hitler wanted to created a whole world that worshipped himself..... no room for any God!

Where do you get that impression? It seems to me that he was yet another among many dictators that do see themselves as agents of God.

People now say that the Vatican helped him. That's like saying that a bank teller certainly robbed when he passed the money to the gunman! Crazy! The Vatican was surrounded and 'knew' that it could soon be extinguished just as soon as Hitler felt strong enough.

I would like to see some evidence in that direction, as well. People often forget how much support Hitler had at the time, at least until he began killing Jews.

Hitler's God was Hitler. I don't accept a crazed psychopath's word that he believed in anything at all.

That is fair and good, but the facts stands that many psychopath murderers do, in fact, have a strong if obviously insane belief that they act on God's behalf. I don't blame you in disregarding their belief as the insanity that it truly is... but that does not make them atheists, and it is arguable that it doesn't make them any less theists either.

In fact, there is the unconfortable but real worry that they may not be all that unusual or distinguishable from "regular" theists. Which is one question that the OP ends up presenting and that deserves consideration.

And going to services does not certainly make a theist. When I was a kid I remember whole families going off to church because 'you had to be seen in church'...... poor sorry sad folks!

It is certainly not evidence of being Atheist, though. Much less of having an atheist ideology.

No... Hitler was a Hitlerist, and if he was working with evolution, then it was ultimately 'evolution' that finished him and his nasty crew off.

He wasn't.

I wonder, did he actually claim to? His talk about racial purity was not really very technical at all, far as I can tell.



----



As for Hitler's Table Talk, I fear that it is not a reliable source about Hitler's supposed atheism.

Hitler's Table Talk

Hitler's Table Talk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Personally, I think that at some point we have to admit that we do know what Hitler was like. He called himself Fuher, a word with paternalist conotations (much like the words often used for Catholic Priests). He presented himself as a pious man in Mein Kampf, time and again. He had the exact kind of behavior that deranged theists often present to this day, down to the unwavering conviction and passioned, reality-challenged discouse. He made religious predictions and used religious justifications. He sought and obtained religious alliances with Muslims and Catholics. He emulated Christian pomp and circunstance with his Nazi rituals. He even inspired suicidal devotion from his followers - something rather difficult to find in someone who is not a Theist, I must say.

What else can one ask for?

 

[ankarali]

I think Hitler believes in God maybe he was a Christian but I don't think he was an atheist. It is remarkable Hitler never attacked to a muslim country, interesting! and in his army there were muslim bosnian soldiers (Hancerler)

 

[Storm]

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.

The first time, you said you were leaving and "have a good day." That falls under the umbrella of "goodbye."

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

In fact, I did. That's how I caught your double standard. "How did this [false] observation advance the discussion at all?"

 

[Dingbat]

Why would you think so? An insincere or unbalanced theist, I can see. But is there anything suggesting that he was an atheist?




Racists often make exceptions for specific people. It is an important part of their self-justification, even.





Uh... in the Bible, perhaps?

It certainly has enough passages justifying violence and hatred, going all the way back to Moses acting very Hitler-like in Numbers 31.





Where do you get that impression? It seems to me that he was yet another among many dictators that do see themselves as agents of God.





I would like to see some evidence in that direction, as well. People often forget how much support Hitler had at the time, at least until he began killing Jews.




That is fair and good, but the facts stands that many psychopath murderers do, in fact, have a strong if obviously insane belief that they act on God's behalf. I don't blame you in disregarding their belief as the insanity that it truly is... but that does not make them atheists, and it is arguable that it doesn't make them any less theists either.

In fact, there is the unconfortable but real worry that they may not be all that unusual or distinguishable from "regular" theists. Which is one question that the OP ends up presenting and that deserves consideration.





It is certainly not evidence of being Atheist, though. Much less of having an atheist ideology.




He wasn't.

I wonder, did he actually claim to? His talk about racial purity was not really very technical at all, far as I can tell.



----



As for Hitler's Table Talk, I fear that it is not a reliable source about Hitler's supposed atheism.

Hitler's Table Talk

Hitler's Table Talk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Personally, I think that at some point we have to admit that we do know what Hitler was like. He called himself Fuher, a word with paternalist conotations (much like the words often used for Catholic Priests). He presented himself as a pious man in Mein Kampf, time and again. He had the exact kind of behavior that deranged theists often present to this day, down to the unwavering conviction and passioned, reality-challenged discouse. He made religious predictions and used religious justifications. He sought and obtained religious alliances with Muslims and Catholics. He emulated Christian pomp and circunstance with his Nazi rituals. He even inspired suicidal devotion from his followers - something rather difficult to find in someone who is not a Theist, I must say.

What else can one ask for?

Acting like a Christian makes one a Christian? Have we ignored the fact of propaganda? Courting the churches in Europe makes sense because of the power base they provide with State sponsored religions. To assume that is genuine simply because he said things in public is naive. Every statement Hitler made in regards to Christian faith was made either when alliances needed to be cemented or speeches. Hitler saying he would always remain a Catholic was in discussion about cementing relations with German Catholics.

As to Hitler's Table Talk only Dr. Steigmann-Gall is the one who claims it isn't legitimate and with rather flimsy reasoning. Of course his research is largely based on the Positive Christianity movement initiated by the Nazis and thus I feel his research blinders have creeped in with Hitler. He offers much more legitimacy to Hitler's public speeches and commentary than his inner circle dialogues. The biggest reason Steigmann-Gall claims it isn't real is bizarre as well since he states that it was simply hand written accounts. Yet if Steigmann-Gall was as familiar with Hitler as he was Nazi Positive Christianity he would know Hitler was utterly paranoid about recording devices in regards to personal conversations. Thus with Steigmann-Gall's reasoning you could reject anything Hitler said privately. Yet Steigmann-Gall accepts anything reported second hand and in line with his thinking as legitimate. I fear he has fallen into confirmation bias. The book does have translation issues but those quotes were never my bias for my opinion. Hitler always had a respect for Jesus Christ but not as a messiah of any sort but as a fighter against Jewish corruption. There are also claims that Martin Bormann Hitler's personal secretary was part of the Red Orchestra ring and thus his obsession of keeping recordings of personal conversations. The reason this claim still bounces around is for the fact that we do know the Soviets had an inside man in the Bunker and Bormann completely disappears shortly after Hitler's death. Though that is mere circumstantial evidence and it could be just as likely Bormann was just one of countless many dead in Berlin at that point.

Now would I personally call Hitler an atheist? No the term doesn't fit his views of the world. Hitler had an idea of divinity but it doesn't fit any traditional religion. He makes references repeatedly to a divine mandate for racial warfare and an idea that the Germanic race has a special place in history. Which is somewhat similar to ideas espoused by Martin Luther as well. The problem with Hitler as I highlighted in my previous post is the man put up so many fronts for who he was I don't know if anyone really knew the man except for maybe Eva Braun.

 

[oldbadger]

HI LuisDantas!
................ is there anything suggesting that he was an atheist?
Did he go to a religious service very often in his last ten years?


Racists often make exceptions for specific people. It is an important part of their self-justification, even.
How was preserving his family doctor a self-justification? He simply felt that he owed the guy for the care given to his mother.

Uh... in the Bible, perhaps? It certainly has enough passages justifying violence and hatred, going all the way back to Moses acting very Hitler-like in Numbers 31.
So you don't think Hitler could have worked out his strategy all by himself. He needed to get the idea from a bible. Yes?


Where do you get that impression? It seems to me that he was yet another among many dictators that do see themselves as agents of God.
No. I don't think Hitler was a schizophrenic. I think he was psychotic.


I would like to see some evidence in that direction, as well. People often forget how much support Hitler had at the time, at least until he began killing Jews.
So you are having trouble in seeing that the Vatican was under total duress?


............. many psychopath murderers do, in fact, have a strong if obviously insane belief that they act on God's behalf. I don't blame you in disregarding their belief as the insanity that it truly is... but that does not make them atheists, and it is arguable that it doesn't make them any less theists either.
No. Psycopaths get guilty verdicts, because they are just ruthless unscrupulous amoral immoral nasties. Scizophrenics (who receives messages, etc) often get 'Not guilty by reason of insanity' verdicts. Hitler was acting on his own behalf, and at the end he even disowned his own race........ 'They did not deserve to win' rant.


In fact, there is the unconfortable but real worry that they may not be all that unusual or distinguishable from "regular" theists. Which is one question that the OP ends up presenting and that deserves consideration.
Ever heard of Stalin? There must be scores like him. So you think that most crazy genocide merchants are probably theists? Really?

It is certainly not evidence of being Atheist, though. Much less of having an atheist ideology.
If Hitler had had a cross in his Bunker,or at Bechesgarten, it would have been a remarkable find for the Allies.

I wonder, did he actually claim to? His talk about racial purity was not really very technical at all, far as I can tell.
Hitler did not need technical ability. He needed some amazing form of power of attraction to gain such a foothold. Evolution is what affects people, regardless of their power of intellect.

As for Hitler's Table Talk, I fear that it is not a reliable source about Hitler's supposed atheism.
Well, despite your fear, I am interested in it and would like to learn more.

I didn't have an agenda for Hitler to be an atheist. Do you have an agenda for him to have been a theist?

 

[1robin]

*Post Removed*

Here are a couple of tests for your omniscience in history.

What percentage of the Wauffen SS were Muslims?

In what meeting and with who did Hitler first publically state his plans for the Jews?
I will give you a hint it was not a western nation.

I will read your answers but will not debate anything further with you. The sarcasm to competence ratio is about a 100 to one and does not justify any participation from me.

 

[1robin]

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

Wonder why I what? And let's see what?

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

Have I ever claimed that Christians have never started or fought wars? My point is that Hitler's actions are consistent with evolution and a Christians violent acts are not consistent with the NT. Claiming a book that is probably most famous for its ten commandments one of which specifically says DO NOT MURDER, actually promotes murder is delusional. I think you are confusing the allowance for justified killing with unjustified murder.

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.

No, he claimed to find support in evolution and the Bible. He was incorrect with his Biblical support claims. Can you find me a single NT verse that allows for unjustified killing of any kind? Heck can you even find me one that allows justified violence of any kind (not that that is even the issue)? You are plumbing a dry well.

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

If a believer is acting contrary to his belief by what standard do you conclude he is a believer. Keep in mind anyone can claim anything. That is meaningless. I have said he was not a sincere theist and that is a fact of history and the only point that does mean anything.

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.

I do not care what you do concerning priests. It goes on everyday anyway and some of it is needed. I am not defending man, I am defending the Bible and God.

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.

I am sure that is correct.

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.

Evolution is a very broad term that applies to Chemistry, design, morality, society and a thousand other things. For convenience I assume, it is defined by a hyper literalistic framework concerning biology alone if that is beneficial, or it is used broadly by the same scholars if that is more convenient when they need to claim it does in fact generate morality (but only good morality). It is remarkably pliable it seems.

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 recommend you understand what it means and implies.

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

Well you did just that by claiming Hitler was one. If you invented no standard by what did you make the determination? I said he was at best a superficial theist and there is no escape from that fact.

Out of curiosity, how many Christians would you estimate to exist worldwide by such criteria?

By such Criteria as what is claimed in John by Christ you mean? There are about 2.1 billion people who claim to be Christians. A certain by unknowable percentage of them are true Christians and have been born again. What does this have to do with Hitler? I have been trying to stay on topic but the people who suggested it are now randomly saying anything.

Does having an extra-marital affair make one not a Christian?

I never mentioned it and it is irrelevant but no.

Does actual diagnosed schizophrenia?

I do not see the relevance or application.

Support for a needless war under false pretenses? Bearing false witness?

No and no. Our perfection did not make us Christians and our imperfections do not unmake us Christians. I would be happy to get into doctrine with you as that is my home turf but do not think it is relevant here.

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?

I do not care what you do. I was simply stating a fact. There are superficial Christians (those that have simply an intellectual consent to an ideology) and sincere Christians (those that have been born again by the Holy Spirit and who's names are written in the Book of Life). It is the difference between literally believing something and hitching your wagon to a label for a concept. Unless you believe we instantly are whatever we claim to be then I do not see the issue. If that was true then I am the best golfer who ever lived.

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.

"Only a fool says in his heart there is no God" written by God. That is the most self ruting statement I think possible.

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

Not even a little bit. Theology and comparative religion is not your specialty is it? Let’s see I said: Theism implies a deity with power, will, capability and who is personal (benevolent interest). Here is the "official definition of theism:
the·ism
Noun:
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal...
In what way pray tell are those two arguable? The God of the Bible is simply a specific concept of God, that is theistic in nature.

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

See above

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.

What?

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

Or maybe not. What was the point of that?

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.

No, if you forget to say the Rosary that is subtle, if you systematically murder 6 million of God's chosen in cold blood for no reason that is about as obvious as possible. There is no starker contrast than between Catholicism and Hitler's actions in human history. How cognitive dissonance and desperation can obscure that is a wonder.

 

[1robin]

In fact, it was his political platform.

No in fact his POLITICAL platform was national socialism.

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.

Between what two choices. Sincere belief and cursory consent. I think there exists no choice more obvious in even the hypothetical. "Do not murder", "Do not be quick to anger" "turn the other cheek" and "seek peace above all" does not equal kill 6 million Jews and attack most of the Earth and start a war that kills 50 million total. On what planet are those consistent or subtle in any way. Good Lord man.

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.

I follow this one and dismiss the rest:
"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

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.

If you don't then I can't help.

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?

If you want a doctrinal debate then create a thread I will be more than happy to expound on it.

Who decides, with which authority, and how open should they be with their judgment’s?

Christ.

A good case can be made that it is a good thing to make such judgments. 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.

50 million people disagree. Your interpretation of Mathew is flawed.

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

I see you recalibrated and contradicted the theme of your previous statement. Finally.

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

Partially.

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.

50 million people disagree.

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

As was posted by another person in post #143 Hitler eventually wrote blistering rebukes concerning Christians and Christianity.

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

So before you acquire the evidence you have preselected your conclusions. That is the most frustrating fact of debating with Biblical critics.

 

[1robin]

The first time, you said you were leaving and "have a good day." That falls under the umbrella of "goodbye."

The word umbrella does not appear in your post. Have a good day implies a relatively soon departure which is exactly what happened. Who cares anyway? What does this have to do with anything?

In fact, I did. That's how I caught your double standard. "How did this [false] observation advance the discussion at all?"

The fact that you have twice made a mere assertion without even bothering to point out what it concerns and personal observations devoid of merit indicates comments meant for effect and not for meaningful content. I will not be drawn into another personal comment contest with you. Either post something relevant and meaningful or I can't justify a response. Defend Hitler, condemn the Bible, or anything not umbrella related or so boring.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

I am just saying he was a theist and he justified himself that way like a lot of theists.

In any case I am just pointing theist =/= meek. Theist just = theist

 

[Me Myself]

If Hitler actions were consistent with evolution he wouldnt have died before the avarage age of death of most people of his time.

 

[Flankerl]

I am just saying he was a theist and he justified himself that way like a lot of theists.

No. Why?
Because he said a lot of stuff to get groups of people behind him. Its called politics.


You cant compare someone from germany of the first half of the last century with todays people (and most probably not even from germany).
It completely ignores the different set of minds and places of birth.

 

[Me Myself]

No. Why?
Because he said a lot of stuff to get groups of people behind him. Its called politics.


You cant compare someone from germany of the first half of the last century with todays people (and most probably not even from germany).
It completely ignores the different set of minds and places of birth.

I always get skeptic when people say "you can´t compare"

In any case, if you continue reading I am saying him being a theist only means he is a theist.

 

[Storm]

The word umbrella does not appear in your post.

I'm aware of that. I suppose your next point will be that umbrellas are tools for keeping rain off your head and have nothing to do with departure anyway. Is there a reason you so often resort to the tactic of pretending not to speak English?

Who cares anyway?

Well, you certainly are throwing a hissy fit over it.

What does this have to do with anything?

Just underlining your dishonesty and incompetence, that's all.

The fact that you have twice made a mere assertion without even bothering to point out what it concerns and personal observations devoid of merit indicates comments meant for effect and not for meaningful content.

No, it really doesn't. If you really couldn't see where you were employing double standards, you might have just asked. Of course, such civility seems to be entirely beyond your grasp.

In attempting to debunk Hitler's claims of Christianity by examining his actions while insisting that we blindly take his word for being a Socialist, you're employing a double standard.

I will not be drawn into another personal comment contest with you. Either post something relevant and meaningful or I can't justify a response. Defend Hitler, condemn the Bible, or anything not umbrella related or so boring.

Don't whine that I follow your lead in our encounters. If you want a real debate, bring something to the table beyond petty insults and feigned ignorance of English nuance.

 

[1robin]

I'm aware of that. I suppose your next point will be that umbrellas are tools for keeping rain off your head and have nothing to do with departure anyway. Is there a reason you so often resort to the tactic of pretending not to speak English?

I point out your gross inaccuracies as often as your false claims necessitate it.

Well, you certainly are throwing a hissy fit over it.

I am trying to get it to go away, and substitute it with some honesty and relevant discussion apparently to no effect. I am the one who says no one including me cares or should. You are the one that just keeps the garbage rolling.

Just underlining your dishonesty and incompetence, that's all.

That is why I am pointing out the meanings of words and the fact that not only is your claim here technically wrong on every level, it is also irrelevant. The fact that your false accusation of lying is in fact a lie is pathetic.

No, it really doesn't. If you really couldn't see where you were employing double standards, you might have just asked. Of course, such civility seems to be entirely beyond your grasp.

No one that lies in order to falsely show dishonesty should mention civility.

In attempting to debunk Hitler's claims of Christianity by examining his actions while insisting that we blindly take his word for being a Socialist, you're employing a double standard.

Good grief it is even worse than I thought. The issue is sincerity not intellectual consent. They have different levels of proof.

[/quote]
Don't whine that I follow your lead in our encounters. If you want a real debate, bring something to the table beyond petty insults and feigned ignorance of English nuance.[/quote]What is this the fourth grade I know you are but what am I routine?How are you following me when it is you that first addressed me in this thread? I do not intend to respond to another claim by you here that lacks any substance concerning this thread regardless of umbrellas or the meaning of bye. My equivocations concerning language are made necessary and indicate the complete inaccuracy and irrelevance of claims about how it is I communicated I was leaving. Your claims are circling the drain of the semantic toilet. I hate this personal back and forth garbage.

 

[1robin]

I am just saying he was a theist and he justified himself that way like a lot of theists.

By what standard do you judge him a theist?

If by intellectual consent then that is fine but that is no more meaningless than me claiming I am a chair.

People's claims of allegiance are usually judged by their actions. His actions are about as opposite to what theism implies as is possible.

In any case I am just pointing theist =/= meek. Theist just = theist

Nope, Theism equals: In a more specific sense, theism is a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheisticGod and God's relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and some forms of Hinduism. The use of the word theism to indicate this classical form of monotheism began during the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century in order to distinguish it from the then-emerging deism which contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

Not only that but the specific type of theism he is connected with is Catholicism. In what way did he indicate or show that he sincerely believed and followed Catholicism? By killing 6 million of God's chosen people or practicing almost every sin forbidden by the Bible as a daily practice?You can claim to be a turkey buzzard or an F22 Raptor but unless you jump off a cliff and fly the claim is meaningless and isn't relevant and no one would believe you were either one.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

By what standard do you judge him a theist?

If by intellectual consent then that is fine but that is no more meaningless than me claiming I am a chair.

People's claims of allegiance are usually judged by their actions. His actions are about as opposite to what theism implies as is possible.

A "theist" is someone who believes in the existence of a God, not someone who believes in a specific God - for example, the Christian God.

This is essentially a no true scotsman fallacy. "Well, he says he was one, but he didn't act in the way that I personally define a person under that label as being capable of acting, so clearly he wasn't one". What if I'd done the same thing with Stalin? "Well, he says he was an atheist, but since he acted in such an irrational manner that couldn't be true since all atheists are rational, kind and non-murderous people."

See what I mean?