We Never Know
No Slack
Don't forget about Jim Jones
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Once a christian, always a christian
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Don't forget about Jim Jones
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
That sounds reasonable.
As several have already told you, I don't make that argument, and haven't seen it.
Was Hitler a Christian? Does it matter? He was raised Christian, and became a genocidal monster. He also demagogued with religion, knowing that with Christianity, like Islam, all one need do to enlist people to help you in your monstrosity is to convince them that God approves, which appears to be relatively easy. Hey, if God says or does it, it must be moral, since that is the definition of morality (divine command theory).
We see that in these threads regularly. It's why God drowned the earth. Sound like the work of a demon? Naw. They deserved it, the sinners, just like the kids in Eden who were cast out of an imagined paradise, and whose progeny were sentenced to lose paradise and immortality to toil the land to eke out a living as their wives had painful births. Why? They deserved it. Something about an apple and disobedience. Same thing with those cities that were destroyed. They deserved it, the sinners. See how easy that is to do?
What it shows to me is that Christianity doesn't make people good as it did not with Hitler (or Stalin). What it makes them is subject to manipulation. Plenty of Christians know better than to buy into unbelievers being all corrupt and none doing good, immoral rebels in the eyes of a just God fit to be cast into a pit of fire, and those that are willing to believe that. Or that gays are an abomination to this loving, just God. I guess they must be if God thinks so, right? Let's start their hell right here on earth. God will approve, since that's what he plans to do with their iniquitous souls later anyway.
As I said, plenty of Christians are better than that, but not because their religion teaches them to be. And many are monsters because their religion gave them permission to be when their pastor told them who God disapproves of. Lesbians, abortionists, feminists - that's why God visits things like 9/11 and hurricanes on America. He is angry at a sinful people. The televangelists will tell you. This kind of sermonizing does shape people - those not inherently good enough to reject it. How many people have called Trump the anointed of God, and supported his agenda because they believe that?
https://bigthink.com/the-present/was-trump-anointed-by-god/
Do you think this photo shaped anybody's beliefs? Surely this man speaks for a good God in the eyes of too many.
Does any of that count as evil from religion?
The believer will bristle at this description, because he believes that those are not Christians, and wants to separate himself from this aspect of his religion. They're not us. They're not of God. These are the ones who define Christian by their behavior. Bad behavior, not Christian. See, I told you that Christianity makes people good, and when it doesn't, well, that's not true Christianity.
But that's obviously a self-serving definition. I use the one that these same people use when they tell us that there are 2.4 billion Christians in the world, the world's largest religion. And what id that? When asked, they said they were Christian, with no test of doctrine (this how the Protestants and Catholics disqualify one another as not true Christians, because they worship Saints or baptize by sprinkling instead of immersion) or character (how Christlike are you?) given. They change definitions according to what serves the present purpose. "Christianity is hugely popular as you can tell from these survey results, although if you ask them what they believe or look at how they live, well, now they're not true Christians.
This secular humanist sees them all as Christians, some good, some failed. So was Hitler a Christian? First, it would depend on the definition used, and second, it doesn't matter how one answers anyway. You want to say he's not a true Christian. Plenty of people believed he was and committed atrocities on that basis, as with Trump. Same answer? Was Trump a true Christian? Answer any way you like. He certainly knew what the religion could be used to do, and that's what matters.
I would. Why wouldn't that be a part of Christianity, too, if it occurred. Because scripture says don't kill? Apparently, that's not enough. That's not teaching moral rectitude. That's saying, be good, and thinking that makes people good.
But do you know what kind of people tend to be morally upright? Secular humanists. They tend to embrace Enlightenment values, which include tolerance, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, unlike other types of people who only give lip service to such things, then try to impose their religion on unbelievers and support conservative talking points about the poor being welfare queens scamming the system and asylum seekers as infected criminals. Secular humanists reject that. They actually promote the Golden Rule. Why treat the transgendered and those that want to be in a same sex marriage differently than you would want to be treated? I don't know, but plenty of people who give lip service to love one another don't seem to have a clue what that means or how to do it, nor do they care. This is love, they'll tell you
Secular humanism is the gold standard against which I compare all of the religions - the control group to determine the effect of these religions on people. How many sects or religions outperform it? None. And the more zealous people are, unless they come to their religion with inherent goodness, the more easily they can be recruited to do harm to others.
Look at at mother Teresa, considered a spiritual genius by many. Did the church create this in her? Of course not, although they like to offer her as an example of Christian love and charity. But what effect did her religion have on her mission, which was to open and run hospices for the dying poor? For one thing, they taught her this:
"There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering." and "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." Is this a help to the world? No. This is immoral to a secular humanist. It facilitates pointless gratuitous suffering based on cruel, irrational dogma. I'm a former hospice medical director. This is utterly horrible, and led to the withholding of palliative care in hospices!
This doctrine also caused many people to refuse pain treatment on their death beds, because they were unsure about their salvation, and needed to be purged if sin in the crucible of God's love, however painful. Jesus is kissing you. Don't refuse his cleansing suffering. Instead, go on collecting money donated to relieve suffering, but instead, send it to the Vatican treasury. That's how her religion influenced her. A spiritual genius was made into an unwitting sadist and fraudulent fund raiser. In the end, she had a crisis of faith. I think she'd have done better without her religion.
But love one another, right? Be good. That's the moral lessons for today. What's good? Suffering for Christ, among other things. And if you want to go on a killing spree like your example, or commit any other monstrosity, well, all sin is forgiven if one just asks with a little his in your heart and a "Forgive me, Lord, for I am but weak flesh, and come to you for guidance with this truly repentant heart. Only you know how my demons haunt me, and how much I really love you. You are the potter and I am the clay. Be with me, O Lord. Amen."
Rinse, lather, repeat. This is not a moral system. It's a moral loophole that sidesteps accountability with forgiveness on demand.
Audie
Veteran Member
Soured, or opened their eyes?
Audie
Veteran Member
And Ivan the Terrible?
Devout Orthodox
Of course Stalin operated on a larger scale
but he was not noted for being entertained by
inventing means of torture and watching them
used.
Considering the catholic mafia, the witch burners, crusaders, and the disproportionate
crime rate of christians v atheist,
Id say the realistic thing is to observe how little
difference religion / lack of actually has
on peoples behaviour.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
As several have already told you, I don't make that argument, and haven't seen it.
Was Hitler a Christian? Does it matter? He was raised Christian, and became a genocidal monster. He also demagogued with religion, knowing that with Christianity, like Islam, all one need do to enlist people to help you in your monstrosity is to convince them that God approves, which appears to be relatively easy. Hey, if God says or does it, it must be moral, since that is the definition of morality (divine command theory).
We see that in these threads regularly. It's why God drowned the earth. Sound like the work of a demon? Naw. They deserved it, the sinners, just like the kids in Eden who were cast out of an imagined paradise, and whose progeny were sentenced to lose paradise and immortality to toil the land to eke out a living as their wives had painful births. Why? They deserved it. Something about an apple and disobedience. Same thing with those cities that were destroyed. They deserved it, the sinners. See how easy that is to do?
What it shows to me is that Christianity doesn't make people good as it did not with Hitler (or Stalin). What it makes them is subject to manipulation. Plenty of Christians know better than to buy into unbelievers being all corrupt and none doing good, immoral rebels in the eyes of a just God fit to be cast into a pit of fire, and those that are willing to believe that. Or that gays are an abomination to this loving, just God. I guess they must be if God thinks so, right? Let's start their hell right here on earth. God will approve, since that's what he plans to do with their iniquitous souls later anyway.
As I said, plenty of Christians are better than that, but not because their religion teaches them to be. And many are monsters because their religion gave them permission to be when their pastor told them who God disapproves of. Lesbians, abortionists, feminists - that's why God visits things like 9/11 and hurricanes on America. He is angry at a sinful people. The televangelists will tell you. This kind of sermonizing does shape people - those not inherently good enough to reject it. How many people have called Trump the anointed of God, and supported his agenda because they believe that?
https://bigthink.com/the-present/was-trump-anointed-by-god/
Do you think this photo shaped anybody's beliefs? Surely this man speaks for a good God in the eyes of too many.
Does any of that count as evil from religion?
The believer will bristle at this description, because he believes that those are not Christians, and wants to separate himself from this aspect of his religion. They're not us. They're not of God. These are the ones who define Christian by their behavior. Bad behavior, not Christian. See, I told you that Christianity makes people good, and when it doesn't, well, that's not true Christianity.
But that's obviously a self-serving definition. I use the one that these same people use when they tell us that there are 2.4 billion Christians in the world, the world's largest religion. And what id that? When asked, they said they were Christian, with no test of doctrine (this how the Protestants and Catholics disqualify one another as not true Christians, because they worship Saints or baptize by sprinkling instead of immersion) or character (how Christlike are you?) given. They change definitions according to what serves the present purpose. "Christianity is hugely popular as you can tell from these survey results, although if you ask them what they believe or look at how they live, well, now they're not true Christians.
This secular humanist sees them all as Christians, some good, some failed. So was Hitler a Christian? First, it would depend on the definition used, and second, it doesn't matter how one answers anyway. You want to say he's not a true Christian. Plenty of people believed he was and committed atrocities on that basis, as with Trump. Same answer? Was Trump a true Christian? Answer any way you like. He certainly knew what the religion could be used to do, and that's what matters.
I would. Why wouldn't that be a part of Christianity, too, if it occurred. Because scripture says don't kill? Apparently, that's not enough. That's not teaching moral rectitude. That's saying, be good, and thinking that makes people good.
But do you know what kind of people tend to be morally upright? Secular humanists. They tend to embrace Enlightenment values, which include tolerance, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, unlike other types of people who only give lip service to such things, then try to impose their religion on unbelievers and support conservative talking points about the poor being welfare queens scamming the system and asylum seekers as infected criminals. Secular humanists reject that. They actually promote the Golden Rule. Why treat the transgendered and those that want to be in a same sex marriage differently than you would want to be treated? I don't know, but plenty of people who give lip service to love one another don't seem to have a clue what that means or how to do it, nor do they care. This is love, they'll tell you
Secular humanism is the gold standard against which I compare all of the religions - the control group to determine the effect of these religions on people. How many sects or religions outperform it? None. And the more zealous people are, unless they come to their religion with inherent goodness, the more easily they can be recruited to do harm to others.
Look at at mother Teresa, considered a spiritual genius by many. Did the church create this in her? Of course not, although they like to offer her as an example of Christian love and charity. But what effect did her religion have on her mission, which was to open and run hospices for the dying poor? For one thing, they taught her this:
"There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering." and "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." Is this a help to the world? No. This is immoral to a secular humanist. It facilitates pointless gratuitous suffering based on cruel, irrational dogma. I'm a former hospice medical director. This is utterly horrible, and led to the withholding of palliative care in hospices!
This doctrine also caused many people to refuse pain treatment on their death beds, because they were unsure about their salvation, and needed to be purged if sin in the crucible of God's love, however painful. Jesus is kissing you. Don't refuse his cleansing suffering. Instead, go on collecting money donated to relieve suffering, but instead, send it to the Vatican treasury. That's how her religion influenced her. A spiritual genius was made into an unwitting sadist and fraudulent fund raiser. In the end, she had a crisis of faith. I think she'd have done better without her religion.
But love one another, right? Be good. That's the moral lessons for today. What's good? Suffering for Christ, among other things. And if you want to go on a killing spree like your example, or commit any other monstrosity, well, all sin is forgiven if one just asks with a little his in your heart and a "Forgive me, Lord, for I am but weak flesh, and come to you for guidance with this truly repentant heart. Only you know how my demons haunt me, and how much I really love you. You are the potter and I am the clay. Be with me, O Lord. Amen."
Rinse, lather, repeat. This is not a moral system. It's a moral loophole that sidesteps accountability with forgiveness on demand.
That's a heck of a great post. Wow.
I'm a believer (albeit who has struggled with doubt in recent years) and reading as a believer, your post hit the right marks all down the line. I might quibble a bit here and there, but overall, that was just so well said.
Audie
Veteran Member
I want a dispensation to put a whole row ofAs several have already told you, I don't make that argument, and haven't seen it.
Was Hitler a Christian? Does it matter? He was raised Christian, and became a genocidal monster. He also demagogued with religion, knowing that with Christianity, like Islam, all one need do to enlist people to help you in your monstrosity is to convince them that God approves, which appears to be relatively easy. Hey, if God says or does it, it must be moral, since that is the definition of morality (divine command theory).
We see that in these threads regularly. It's why God drowned the earth. Sound like the work of a demon? Naw. They deserved it, the sinners, just like the kids in Eden who were cast out of an imagined paradise, and whose progeny were sentenced to lose paradise and immortality to toil the land to eke out a living as their wives had painful births. Why? They deserved it. Something about an apple and disobedience. Same thing with those cities that were destroyed. They deserved it, the sinners. See how easy that is to do?
What it shows to me is that Christianity doesn't make people good as it did not with Hitler (or Stalin). What it makes them is subject to manipulation. Plenty of Christians know better than to buy into unbelievers being all corrupt and none doing good, immoral rebels in the eyes of a just God fit to be cast into a pit of fire, and those that are willing to believe that. Or that gays are an abomination to this loving, just God. I guess they must be if God thinks so, right? Let's start their hell right here on earth. God will approve, since that's what he plans to do with their iniquitous souls later anyway.
As I said, plenty of Christians are better than that, but not because their religion teaches them to be. And many are monsters because their religion gave them permission to be when their pastor told them who God disapproves of. Lesbians, abortionists, feminists - that's why God visits things like 9/11 and hurricanes on America. He is angry at a sinful people. The televangelists will tell you. This kind of sermonizing does shape people - those not inherently good enough to reject it. How many people have called Trump the anointed of God, and supported his agenda because they believe that?
https://bigthink.com/the-present/was-trump-anointed-by-god/
Do you think this photo shaped anybody's beliefs? Surely this man speaks for a good God in the eyes of too many.
Does any of that count as evil from religion?
The believer will bristle at this description, because he believes that those are not Christians, and wants to separate himself from this aspect of his religion. They're not us. They're not of God. These are the ones who define Christian by their behavior. Bad behavior, not Christian. See, I told you that Christianity makes people good, and when it doesn't, well, that's not true Christianity.
But that's obviously a self-serving definition. I use the one that these same people use when they tell us that there are 2.4 billion Christians in the world, the world's largest religion. And what id that? When asked, they said they were Christian, with no test of doctrine (this how the Protestants and Catholics disqualify one another as not true Christians, because they worship Saints or baptize by sprinkling instead of immersion) or character (how Christlike are you?) given. They change definitions according to what serves the present purpose. "Christianity is hugely popular as you can tell from these survey results, although if you ask them what they believe or look at how they live, well, now they're not true Christians.
This secular humanist sees them all as Christians, some good, some failed. So was Hitler a Christian? First, it would depend on the definition used, and second, it doesn't matter how one answers anyway. You want to say he's not a true Christian. Plenty of people believed he was and committed atrocities on that basis, as with Trump. Same answer? Was Trump a true Christian? Answer any way you like. He certainly knew what the religion could be used to do, and that's what matters.
I would. Why wouldn't that be a part of Christianity, too, if it occurred. Because scripture says don't kill? Apparently, that's not enough. That's not teaching moral rectitude. That's saying, be good, and thinking that makes people good.
But do you know what kind of people tend to be morally upright? Secular humanists. They tend to embrace Enlightenment values, which include tolerance, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, unlike other types of people who only give lip service to such things, then try to impose their religion on unbelievers and support conservative talking points about the poor being welfare queens scamming the system and asylum seekers as infected criminals. Secular humanists reject that. They actually promote the Golden Rule. Why treat the transgendered and those that want to be in a same sex marriage differently than you would want to be treated? I don't know, but plenty of people who give lip service to love one another don't seem to have a clue what that means or how to do it, nor do they care. This is love, they'll tell you
Secular humanism is the gold standard against which I compare all of the religions - the control group to determine the effect of these religions on people. How many sects or religions outperform it? None. And the more zealous people are, unless they come to their religion with inherent goodness, the more easily they can be recruited to do harm to others.
Look at at mother Teresa, considered a spiritual genius by many. Did the church create this in her? Of course not, although they like to offer her as an example of Christian love and charity. But what effect did her religion have on her mission, which was to open and run hospices for the dying poor? For one thing, they taught her this:
"There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering." and "You are suffering like Christ on the cross. So Jesus must be kissing you." Is this a help to the world? No. This is immoral to a secular humanist. It facilitates pointless gratuitous suffering based on cruel, irrational dogma. I'm a former hospice medical director. This is utterly horrible, and led to the withholding of palliative care in hospices!
This doctrine also caused many people to refuse pain treatment on their death beds, because they were unsure about their salvation, and needed to be purged if sin in the crucible of God's love, however painful. Jesus is kissing you. Don't refuse his cleansing suffering. Instead, go on collecting money donated to relieve suffering, but instead, send it to the Vatican treasury. That's how her religion influenced her. A spiritual genius was made into an unwitting sadist and fraudulent fund raiser. In the end, she had a crisis of faith. I think she'd have done better without her religion.
But love one another, right? Be good. That's the moral lessons for today. What's good? Suffering for Christ, among other things. And if you want to go on a killing spree like your example, or commit any other monstrosity, well, all sin is forgiven if one just asks with a little his in your heart and a "Forgive me, Lord, for I am but weak flesh, and come to you for guidance with this truly repentant heart. Only you know how my demons haunt me, and how much I really love you. You are the potter and I am the clay. Be with me, O Lord. Amen."
Rinse, lather, repeat. This is not a moral system. It's a moral loophole that sidesteps accountability with forgiveness on demand.
" winner" icons on that,
I don't think either of the popes in the Nazi era, Ratti and Pacelli, ever had occasion to identify Hitler out loud as a Christian. But Ratti was happy to deal with Mussolini, negotiating the Lateran Treaty 1929 with him by which the Vatican became an independent state; and he appointed Pacelli nuncio to Munich, and later Secretary of State, in which capacity Pacelli negotiated the concordat with Nazi Germany 1933. It's no exaggeration to say Pacelli got on well with the Nazi leaders at a personal level. Becoming Pius XII 1939 March, he continued to regard Fascism as a defense against atheistic communism (though he refrained from public comment when Hitler invaded Russia). When in early 1943 the Allies at Casablanca demanded Germany's unconditional surrender, Pacelli deplored the demand. And as is notorious, he became aware of Nazi extermination camps for Jews and others in 1943, but never once publicly condemned them.
In other words, it suited the Vatican's leaders to get on well with the Fascists; thus when Hitler occupied Rome 1943 Sept he left the Vatican alone, even though it became a refuge for many, including Jews.
Why is that important? If Hitler was happy to be thought of as a Christian (regardless of his actual views), why was he not as much a Christian as anyone else who, however casually, is okay with being thought of as a Christian?
Or to put that another way, how many fewer Christians would there be if we exclude from the count those nominal Christians who either consciously or merely through indifference don't regard Jesus as their savior?
EVERYONE IS A SINNER IN THE EYES OF CHRISTIANS?:
Many Christians believe in original sin. Some say that we carry the sins of Adam and Eve (who tasted the forbidden fruit of knowledge.....I knew that knowing too much was dangerous, and that's why I try to learn as little as possible).
Once we get past discussions of original sin, we have to discuss sinning by causing pain to our moms (childbirth).
Then we can discuss sinning throughout our lives (stepping on ants, breathing air that someone else could breath, eating, etc).
Christians adhere to the teachings of Christ, and the only true Christian is one who is without sin. Therefore, all Christians somehow sin, and therefore no one is a Christian.
GERMANS (PEACEFUL CHRISTIANS?) BACKED HITLER:
Hitler thought that he was doing a favor to the world by torturing to death Jews. The Christian nation of Nazi Germany was cheering him on, with wild 'heil Hitler" shouts, and hand signs of heiling. Many attended Christian churches regularly.
The myth is that the Christian supporters of Hitler didn't know what Hitler was doing. Sure they knew, many people talked about it. The guards at concentration (torture) camps talked about killing and torturing Jews.
It is scary to think of an entire nation of Christians suddenly abandoning their Christian ideals and supporting torture camps, wars, guns, and violence (I refer to the President George W. Bush administration, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and I refer to Adolf Hitler and Nazis). It proves that Hitler's world (a world of hatred and torture of minorities) is not very far away, and it could infect any nation or any population.
https://www2.gvsu.edu/walll/American press and Holocaust.pdf
The website, above, says that the issue of Nazis torturing and killing Jews was not considered a serious issue. Nor was turning back Jewish refugees to put them back into the hands of Nazis (which President Franklin D. Roosevelt did during WW II).
The German Churches and the Nazi State
The website, above (from the United States Holocaust Museum), says that of the 60 million Germans, 20 million were Roman Catholic, and 40 million were Protestant. So, virtually all of Germany was Christian.
The website, above, also says "The [Nazi] Party as such upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession."
The website, above, also says: "In both German churches there were members, including clergy and leading theologians, who openly supported the Nazi regime."....."Nazi authorities reacted forcefully by briefly arresting over 700 pastors."
GERMANS WERE COMMUNISTS OPPOSED TO COMMUNISM.
Communism is a combination of Socialism and dictatorship.
Socialism is an economic system in which the government shares with the people, that is, they build roads for the common good, and support a military to defend all in the nation, and have other social projects (socialized medicine, for example).
Hitler was a dictator.
The name "Nazi" means National Socialist. Unlike other socialist systems, National Socialism means that the nation owns the large businesses, while they allow small business owners to exist, as well.
GERMANS WERE NON-ARYANS WHO CALLED THEMSELVES ARYANS.
Iranians are Aryans.
https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1178&context=honors-theses
The website, above, shows that Christian Germans embraced and taught Nazism.
INTERESTING FACTS:
Former Nazi Torture and Detention Sites Uncovered in Germany
The website, above, says that newly discovered Nazi torture camps have been found. Documents reveal that 220 such torture camps existed.
From Nuremberg to Guantanamo Bay: Uses of Physicians in the War on Terror
The website, above, shows how the United States justified the many torture camps (including CIA black sites) that it had established following the 911 attack.
Lets bear in mind that the W. Bush administration redefined the word "torture" so that Hitler, nor W. Bush tortured anyone. Redefining is another way of lying. So, we could redefine "up" as "down" and redefine "yes" as "no."
Jewish Germans Had Their Lives Destroyed by Nazis During Kristallnacht. Their Neighbors Let It Happen
According to the website, above, from Time Magazine, many Germans were aware of the torture of Jews, but were cowed into silence, and some dissenters had been first jailed, then cowed.
News Bureau | ILLINOIS
The website above, from the University of Illinois, says that Germans considered themselves victims (I suppose this meant that the WW I reparations that kept Germans poor, was one thing that made them feel like victims). They saw the Jews as the victimizers.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I accept that church leaders - Catholic and Protestant - were often cowardly, and at times guilty of active collusion with the Nazis. I also accept that at the time the Nazis came to power, most Germans were nominally Christian.
However, the most cursory understanding of the message of the Gospels makes clear that everything Hitler and his thugs stood for, the horrors and destruction they unleashed on Europe, most particularly the holocaust and everything associated with it, was absolutely antithetical to Christ’s message.
Humanity is to blame for the Nazis, not Christianity. The one thing every active Nazi, every collaborator, and every passive observer, has in common is that they were human beings. Nazi atrocities showed the world the depths of horror we are all capable of descending to, when we collectively surrender to the darkness in our hearts. This is the same darkness Christians believe Christ came to bring a candle into. The message of peace, love, and service to one’s fellows which the Jewish teacher Jesus of Nazareth taught is unequivocal; it’s there in the Gospels, and for many centuries it’s been translated into most languages including German.
For what it’s worth, I also think it’s an error to see Nazism as a German phenomenon. In the 19th Century Germany was a beacon of post enlightenment culture and civilisation. Berlin, Vienna and other cities were hubs of progressive thought in philosophy, science and the arts. If, following economic collapse, fascism could take hold in Mittel Europe less than a century after her cultural heyday, it can take hold anywhere. Which is a lesson for the citizens of democracies everywhere.
Last edited:
Augustus
…
You don't see a fundamental difference between a lukewarm cultural Christian being seen as Christian and a totalitarian despot who uses Christianity as a means to an end for propaganda purposes then starts to persecute it when in power and expresses continual hostility towards it due to its ideological incompatiblity with his goal?
I find the idea we should accept Nazi propaganda uncritically at face value while ignoring the factual evidence a bit bizarre.
There is a reason why almost all historians reject the idea he was a Christian, yet many people on the Internet who dislike religion seem to want him to be one. However, it's certainly not that the folks on the Internet have a better understanding of the evidence or a more rational and unbiased view of it.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Here is how religion works for some people. Religion is always an authoritarian worldview, that claims objective authority over humanity and if need be it includes non-religious ideologies, because they are in fact like religion, because it is only religion that claims objective authority. Further religion is always wrong, because it always leads to harm. And if that is not the case, it is irrelevant because it will lead to harm.
In fact at least according to one poster 98% of all humans are irrational and only the few correct humans are rational. So they have the authority to tell everybody else what is correct, but that is not a case of objective authority, because they are special.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I think your last sentence above, should be enshrined as a guiding principle for all seekers of knowledge, in every field of human enquiry.
THROWN OUT OF HEAVEN?
This Hitler issue begs the question, "can you get thrown out of heaven?" Can you change from Christian to non-Christian while in heaven?
I once answered a question, on another religious forum, about babies dying and going to heaven. Of course they don't believe in Jesus, and Christians believe that only those who believe in Jesus will go to heaven. Yet, I believe that they could. But their mettle has not been tested (too young), so we don't know if they would be good or bad. But, once in heaven, babies might be thrown out.
Lucifer was a perfect angel who was thrown out of heaven. So, it is obvious, that one can be thrown out of heaven.
WAS HITLER STILL A CHRISTIAN?
Hitler's dad had a Jewish partner. Apparently, this Jewish partner was honest, but Hitler's dad instilled in little Adolf the idea that his Jewish partner cheated the Hitler family, and that all Jews were cheap and cheats. Certainly the Jews were persecuted in Europe long before Adolf Hitler was born.
No one contests that Adolf Hitler was raised a Christian. He was somewhat of a choir boy.
Adolf Hitler was an artist at an early age, and everyone knows that. But, what was suppressed during Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime, was the entire body of Hitler's art work. Included in the mix were homoerotic paintings of beautiful young men entwined in romantic embraces. Apparently, Adolph Hitler's fondness of blond young men was not constrained to clothed young men, and not constrained to straight young men, but apparently Adolph Hitler was a homosexual.
All that time of reviewing the troops of shirtless blond young men, was Hitler's homoerotic entertainment.
They say that those who bully homosexuals are homosexuals, themselves, but hiding it.
So, Adolf Hitler was a homosexual, and homosexuals were frowned upon by the Christian churches.
Then came the battle between Adolf Hitler and the Christian churches (in Germany, Poland, Italy, France, and other Nazi occupied nations). While many Christian clergy eagerly helped Adolf Hitler round up Jews, some of the clergy had opposed the tortures and murders of innocent people. This created still more friction between Adolf Hitler and Christian churches.
So, Hitler's battle with Christian churches had little to do with faith, or calling himself a Christian, it was merely a power play and a way for Adolf Hitler to maintain his homosexual lifestyle.
But what about Hitler's girlfriend Eva Braun? This was always seen as a platonic (no sex) relationship, and Hitler and Braun never had any kids (I can picture, in my mind, little babies crawling around with Hitler mustaches and black hair drooped over one eye).
Just because Adolf Hitler opposed the church for taking some of his dictatorial power, and for opposing his homosexual lifestyle, doesn't mean that Adolf Hitler still considered himself a Christian.
CHRISTIANS CAN KILL OR GO TO WAR:
Many Christians make the distinction between murder and killing (for example, executing a murderer is not murder, they claim). These Christians "try to" correct the old testament "thou shalt not kill" to "thou shalt not murder."
Hitler obviously was not heaven material. If Hitlers can get into heaven, heaven certainly isn't a nice place that anyone would want to go to.
But, can't the same be said of President W. Bush who openly defied God's commandment not to attack Babylon, Iraq (written in the bible, in Revelation)? Wasn't President W. Bush, and anyone supporting him, dooming themselves to the fires of hell for all eternity for supporting war (especially war in Babylon)? Christians, now, try rewriting Revelation in the bible, and claim that there must be some other Babylon, rather than the one that has been there for thousands of years. Of course, Revelation says that anyone attempting to change the meaning of Revelation will be thrown into the lake of fire of hell and burn for all eternity.
Lets remember that Iraq was not linked to terrorism, but was merely a nation in the Middle East when the 911 attack occurred.
Christians can't kill (or murder), yet many supporters of President George W. Bush's war in Iraq believe that they are still Christians (though they are not), and still believe that they will get into heaven (they not only won't get into heaven, they will burn in the fires of hell for all eternity).
WHO IS A CHRISTIAN?
Christians are those (like Mormons) who believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus and God.
Christians who supported the recent war in Iraq (or earlier in Europe during WW II) openly defied God, so they were no longer Christians.
Isn't it odd that the Religious Right supports the National Rifle Association (NRA), and they want to support war heroes? The pope was on the NRA's enemy list because the pope was a man of peace (following the teachings of God and Jesus).
Augustus
…
It never ceases to amaze me how people who see themselves as highly rational, empirically minded and proponents of scholarship and expertise become so insanely irrational on the topic of religion (as in the secular study of religion and religious history). The inconsistencies of the human mind are wonderful to observe.
The same people who mock the irrationality of believers or other people they are ideologically opposed to will then believe and support the most palpable nonsense if it shows religion in a bad light. This is true on RF, in atheist/"freethinker" communities, among celebrity atheists, etc.
Generally, these people are fully aware, and often freely admit, they have never really looked into the issues they opine on beyond a cursory googling or what passes for 'common knowledge'. Yet, they are so strident in their beliefs that the only reason any scholar (no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof) could disagree with them is that they are an "apologist". They aren't simply ignorant on the topic, but outright anti-intellectual and hostile to scholarship and providing evidence.
In general, fundies and rationalists are the least likely to change their deeply held opinions based on secular scholarly evidence because both groups are so deeply invested in preserving the narrative of their own intellectual correctness.
Ideologically, to admit to themselves that they were suckered into believing utter nonsense simply because they wanted it to be true is very hard for either.
I understand the moral arguments very clearly, and in other contexts I agree with them.
But the question here, in the light of the OP, is, what does 'being a Christian' mean?
And one of its meanings ─ I'd say its most usual meaning ─ is identifying with Christianity for social purposes (which with Adolf include political purposes, but aren't limited to them). In modern terms, ticking Christian (or one or other Christian sect) on the form, rather than some other religion or 'no religion'.
And another meaning ─ somewhat less common, without being rare ─ is believing Jesus is your savior (which I have no reason to think was true of Adolf).
It's the former which gives rise to the charge, or observation, or claim, that Hitler was a Christian. For many social and political purposes he was.
Not when it comes to antisemitism. While there have been various forms of antisemitism in history, nothing matches the endurance, vehemence and at times murderous rapacity of Christian antisemitism, and they quote parts of John profitably to their cause. It's active to this day. Jews as equal citizens in European nations and their colonies ─ especially Jews with no particular social position from business or learning ─ is an idea that, with few exceptions though not none, is less than a century old.
If the RCC has been antisemitic, so was Luther, for example.
You may be familiar with experiments in psychology which show the willingness of people to inflict pain on others against their own inclinations but in obedience to authority, not least in groups. They show you need to have a rather unusual temperament to insist on your own morality against the group's.
While I don't think it's as simple as that, I agree with Biden and with you that these are troubled and troubling times for democracy.
Yes, of course I see a difference. However, it's a difference very usually overlooked when it comes to, for example, counting the number of Christians in a population.
As I've said in other posts, plainly Hitler didn't mind being regarded as a Christian ─ he was operating in a Christian state in Christian Europe ─ while on the other hand I have no reason to think he regarded Jesus as his savior. However, I've never noticed Christians using that test when counting Christian numbers.
And the OP is about whether it's fair to allege that Hitler was a Christian in the Nazi era. Yes, he was in the former sense, no he wasn't in the latter sense.
I think they accept, as I do, that he didn't regard Jesus as his savior and he didn't take church counsel on his moral decisions. Nonetheless, in the other and more usual sense I mentioned, he was happy to be regarded as a Christian.
Augustus
…
I'm not sure what 'counting the number of Christians' has to do with anything.
If a propagandist doesn't mind being seen as a Christian in his rise to power, yet moves away from this and aims to gradually replace Christianity with a millenarian secular totalitarianism once in power this is very different from say a Trump pretending to be a Christian out of political expediency and maintaining that stance and promoting Christian causes.
Simply that I've never seen them counted by testing whether they individually believe that Jesus is their savior or not ─ only by how they say theyidentify when the question of religion is asked. This relates to Hitler's having a social identity as a Christian.
The Vatican knew very well that he'd moved away from Christian morality ─ Pacelli certainly knew of the death camps by 1943 ─ but that didn't stop him continuing to deal with the Nazi regime, or to prefer it to communism, whose atheism, it appears, seemed much worse to him. Nor did it stop him from objecting in strong terms when the Allies (Casablanca 1932 Jan) determined to require Germany's 'unconditional surrender'.