Adolf Hitler: Christian
History
| January 29, 2005
| Tim
Yeah, right! More evidence from John Ray that Hitler was not a Christian "believer", but simply attempted to re-purpose Christian words to lend support to his own rather different beliefs and goals:
You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" (From p. 96 of Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer -- Macmillan, 1970)
Ray also notes the extensive connections between Nazis and Islamic leaders, for those who somehow didn't know that. My own view is that the anti-Semitism of the Nazis never disappeared, but, like a virus, simply passed though extremist Islamic leaders, where it festered for decades, and is now being transmitted to the left as they defend Islamic extremists and adopt their arguments.
During it's glory era, Islam was much more tolerant of Jews than Christians were, but the situation, lately, has certainly reversed.
Perhaps there's a connection.
I DONT THINK HE WAS NO MAN THAT GO TO CHURCH
Hitler was a devout Christian, and I have solid evidence. One of the Nazi slogans was "Gott Mit Uns" (Lit : God [is] With us")
I have photos of this, of Hitler attending various Churches, and greeting various bishops (although, this could just be diplomatic, of course).
The fact that the KKK also uses Christianity as a theme should come as no suprise then, to anyone who accepts the truth.
Christianity and NationalSocialism are interwoven. One believes in maintaining faith, the other believes in maintaining race. Mind and Body.
Hitler was a devout Christian, and I have solid evidence. One of the Nazi slogans was "Gott Mit Uns" (Lit : God [is] With us")
Ummm... don't mean to puncture your little worldview, but where did you get the idea that only Christians can believe in or refer to some kind of God? Or had this possibility not even occurred to you?
Muslims believe in God, and also use his name frequently. Jews believe in God. Stephen Hawking frequently refers to "God", as Einstein did, even though both are effectively atheists.
Are they therefore all Christians?
Here are some statements from the "Christian" Hitler regarding Christianity:
So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there's no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds - perhaps inhabited worlds like ours - then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity...
Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.
And:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity.
So, if someone talked in similar terms about destroying, say, Islam, would that make them a "devout Muslim"? In your world, apparently!
Your opinion is in complete conflict with the facts. Were you merely ignorant of this evidence, or are historical facts simply inconveniences for you?
I have photos of this, of Hitler attending various Churches, and greeting various bishops (although, this could just be diplomatic, of course).
Of course it was diplomatic. The Pope greets Muslim leaders, visit Mosques, and even kissed the Qu'ran. Would that make the Pope a Muslim? That is what you seem to be arguing.
Hitler's motives and sincerity for such actions should be utterly clear from the previous quotes.
The fact that the KKK also uses Christianity as a theme should come as no suprise then, to anyone who accepts the truth.
Of course. It means that Christianity is a powerful mask to hide behind, a powerful idea to try to conscript to your cause. As is atheism: e.g. the USSR. Just as the KKK tried to claim it was consistent with Christianity, so does today's Democratic party, even though both embrace policies directly at odds with the bible.
Yet, there's an important distinction to be made here: When Stalin slaughtered millions, he wasn't doing anything prohibited by atheism. In fact, an atheistic worldview was very important to enabling the state to have the power to do that.
Contrast this with the KKK, whose main belief -- racism -- is prohibited by the bible. (Col 3:11, Rev 7:9) It's hard to blame a religion for someone's failure to obey it.
Imagine, for a moment, that a man claims to be a doctor but is not. He pretends to have credentials he didn't have, and follow medical guidelines he didn't even know. He operates on someone while totally ignoring basic medical procedures and kills them.
Would that be evidence for the badness of doctors? Or medical procedures? Of course not. It would be evidence of the importance looking closer before calling people doctors. It is an argument against what you are doing here: Granting people false credentials that clearly do not apply to them.
Christianity and NationalSocialism are interwoven.
Really? Then why did Hitler say things like this?
The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.
Christianity is an invention of the Jew? Oh yes, sounds like Hitler was very serious about building National Socialism upon Christianity! Or were you completely unaware, also, of Hitler's feelings towards Jews?
One believes in maintaining faith, the other believes in maintaining race. Mind and Body.
Wow. Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Anyone can do it! My turn:
"Atheism and communism are interwoven. One believes in denying faith, the other in denying freedom. Mind and Body."
Or: "Leftism and euthanasia are interwoven. One believes in taking property, the other in taking life. Mind and Body."
See? You don't have to prove things, show evidence, or anything! You just say something, and expect everyone to bow to your incredible, insightful (and apparently unused) powers of logic!
Look, friend, if you want to understand something about Hitler, his motivations, and the danger he represents, I'll give you a hint: Look at the name of his party. See that word in there: "Socialism"? That should be telling you something.
Or is that kind of evidence just a bit too obvious for you?
Tim,
My comments were very vague with little logic (it was late and I didn't lay my answer out as fully as perhaps I should!)
But I suppose one key point is that nobody is simply Christian or non-Christian. But I guess the question is "to what extent is someone Christian?"
Someone can simply believe in God, or go further and support Christian organisations (donate money?) or help further organisations to help influence governments. And follow the word of the Bible to the letter.
I suppose the danger in your arguement is that nobody can consider themselves Christian unless they themselves are complete devoute extremists who do not deviate from the Bible.
I believe Hitler was indeed Christian (but, as you say, perhaps in a mild, athiest sort of way). This is not a contradiction as it may seem.
Religion is another form of control. It provides the building block for law and politics (and rightly so). Think of Moses and the 10 commandments. Perhaps one of the first incarnation of a states' law.
And it is for this reason that religion and politics are interwoven.
And I believe it is for this reason that Hitler, in his many speeches seemed to turn and begin attacking Christianity. When it became clear that Christian movements could have an impact on his totalitarian (and monsterous) ambitions, he tried to convince people it was the source of the problem. As he himself once said:
"The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category."
As you correctly pointed out, he also tried to tar Bolshevism with the same brush. (as he also tried to blame the Jews for Bolshevism:
"The only thing that would be still worse would be victory for the Jew through Bolshevism"
So I suppose my question, since you don't consider Hitler as Christian, perhaps you should provide a checklist to define exactly what we all need to consider ourselves Christian in your view?
My comments were very vague with little logic (it was late and I didn't lay my answer out as fully as perhaps I should!)
Hey, I've done the same -- I can understand fully!
But I suppose one key point is that nobody is simply Christian or non-Christian.
Are you a Christian? If not, then what authority would you have to make such a pronouncment? It would seem Christians believe there are such things as Christians. (Indeed, what is the point even having such a word otherwise?) Are you saying they are being dishonest for making such claims?
I suppose the danger in your arguement is that nobody can consider themselves Christian unless they themselves are complete devoute extremists who do not deviate from the Bible.
This is untrue. The general definition is that Christian are those who believe their sins have been forgiven through Jesus's death on the cross.
You seem to think one is not a Christian unless one lives it perfectly. That's not true at all. Most people would consider the Apostle Paul to have been a Christian, and even he wrote: "I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out... no, the evil I do not want to do -- this I keep on doing." (Romans 7:18-19)
If we were to accept your definition correctly, we would say even the Apostle Paul was not a Christian. So clearly, we run into some serious issues if we try going that route.
I believe Hitler was indeed Christian...
So you believe a person who actively desires a religon to be destroyed can be considered a true believer in it?
I'm not sure how one can be a Christian in a "mild, atheist sort of way", since the core foundation is the belief atheism refutes.
That's like saying you're a physicist in a "mild, science-hating" sort of way.
You should notice that your words are apparently convicting you of great irrationality in your desire to see this idea through. What motivates such a twisted stream of logic, from one who is obviously otherwise fairly intelligent?
Religion is another form of control...
It can be. But you're engaged in circular reasoning here. Did religion arise to control people? Or does politics proceed from religion? Which came first?
I argue law proceeds from religion, not vise-versa. But of course I would, since I think God exists.
But if God doesn't exist, which you seem to be assuming, then we do of course have to find some other explanation for religion than simply that it could in fact be true, or installed by the creator to make us seek him.
So we can't really have a meaningful discussion here until we admit our premises, rather than going on without realizing we're using them as filters on our thinking.
Another question here is control by who? If you read Hitler's complaint above (the main post), his whole problem with Christianity is that he can't use it properly for his schemes. (And you mention it as well.)
Indeed! That's because the bible actually makes people hard for leaders to absolutely control, by laying down absolute limits where government can, and cannot go. They end up wanting to please God (as portrayed in the bible) not men.
Christians are fine within the limit of most sensible societies, and are instructed by the bible to obey the laws, but there are extremes they cannot pass, given that they believe in a higher check on government's potentially absolute authority.
This makes bible-based Christianity a very poor tool for mass control, so you have to corrupt it somehow (as Hitler tried very hard to do, see first part of this), and/or suppress the bible.
And it is for this reason that religion and politics are interwoven.
I don't believe religion and politics are "interwoven", but I would agree they are linked. I think evidence shows religion is far more primal in the soul than politics -- and by religion, I mean one's core metaphysical beliefs of any sort, be it Scientology, Christianity, Atheism, or Environmentalism. Whatever fills that hole.
Thus I see politics as simply an argument about religion and philosophy, carried out in the sphere of common government.
So one's politics are simply one's religious beliefs, put into action in this area. And I mean this about everyone, not just those who have realized and admit they have certain metaphysical beliefs.
And I believe it is for this reason that Hitler, in his many speeches seemed to turn and begin attacking Christianity.
HINT: A man who starts attacking his "loved one" the minute they aren't convenient or doesn't obey them doesn't really love that person. And probably didn't in the first place.
When it became clear that Christian movements could have an impact on his totalitarian (and monsterous) ambitions, he tried to convince people it was the source of the problem.
Nice try, but you'll have to examine the evidence more closely. Those conversations were not made to the public. If you read them you'll note he is saying he will not attack Christianity directly.
So your narrative doesn't even match what Hitler is saying to you. This smells of an idea in search of evidence, rather than a conclusion simply drawn from it.
So I suppose my question, since you don't consider Hitler as Christian, perhaps you should provide a checklist to define exactly what we all need to consider ourselves Christian in your view?
Okay, fair enough.
1. Believes that the God described in the bible actually exists, or is the "real" one.
2. Believes Jesus was who the bible depicts him as being.
3. Believes that we are basicly not-good, meaning specifically that we have a tendency to "sin" -- which is to do bad things to each other.
Not just "bad" according to some beliefs in some religious book somewhere, but that we're deeply guilty by the standards with which we judge others.
4. Believes God is just, and cannot call this "just fine" without some kind of sentence. Also believes this state puts a kind of barrier between us and our creator.
5. Believes that the sentence for this kind of immorality way paid for by Jesus, by being crucified.
6. Believes, and has decided to take advantage of, the Jesus's promise that his sacrifice, if we agreed to do so, can be accepted as "payment" for our sin against God, and thus that
(a) God can now interact with us in a totally new way, and
(b) There is no longer a fear of future punishment for sin, since the debt's already paid off
Catholics would of course add that you have to be a member of the Roman Catholic church. But even they recognize there are Christians outside of it.
Jim,
"Are you a Christian? If not, then what authority would you have to make such a pronouncment? It would seem Christians believe there are such things as Christians. (Indeed, what is the point even having such a word otherwise?) Are you saying they are being dishonest for making such claims?"
In other words, Christians are Christians if they believe it to be the case? Isn't that Cyclic reasoning? The word Christian exists to distinguish those who are Christian, from those who arn't. If the definition only works for those who are Christian, then surely it's not a definition able to serve it's purpose.
"This smells of an idea in search of evidence, rather than a conclusion simply drawn from it."
But that's not a bad thing is it? Think of a scientist. He first divises a hypothesis, then performs a series of tests to provide evidence that supports this. That's not flawed logic, simply a method of investigation.
Well, I had a good read of our checklist, and am submitting quotes that may provide support for the idea that Hitler is Christian using our criteria. I'm not suggesting that this is definitive proof, because there is only one person who truely knows if Hitler was Christian, and he's no longer here! But clearly his speeches would suggest he was.
1. Believes that the God described in the bible actually exists, or is the "real" one.
"For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
"I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity."
- Adolf Hitler, Stuttgart, Febuary 15th 1933
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
2. Believes Jesus was who the bible depicts him as being.
"To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross" - Adolf Hitler 12th April 1922
3. Believes that we are basicly not-good, meaning specifically that we have a tendency to "sin" -- which is to do bad things to each other.
Not just "bad" according to some beliefs in some religious book somewhere, but that we're deeply guilty by the standards with which we judge others.
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
"A man who knows a thing, who is aware of a given danger, and sees the possibility of a remedy with his own eyes, has the duty and obligation, by God, not to work 'silently,' but to stand up before the whole public against the evil and for its cure."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
5. Believes that the sentence for this kind of immorality way paid for by Jesus, by being crucified.
(again shown in his statement) "To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross" - Adolf Hitler 12th April 1922
I havn't yet been able to find anything that supports #4 or #6, but if I get a moment tomorrow, I will read some more. It's getting late here in the UK!
Reguards,
~Rog.
Tim, just wanted to apologise for mistyping your name in previous post (and again for double-posting?)
Hehe, its 11:15pm and concentration isn't what it should be!
In other words, Christians are Christians if they believe it to be the case?
I was referring to a group, not an individual. It's possible for individuals to be wrong about whether they belong to some group. For example, a man may be sincerely convinced he works for MI5. That doesn't make him an agent -- he may simply have missed his morning meds. Or he may be trying to impress a girl.
But MI5 agents exist nonetheless.
You're arguing a major group doesn't actually contain nor exclude anyone. If it's true for Christians, then there are also no Buddhists, Muslims, Democrats, Tories, etc. You are basicly saying all labels are meaningless -- but without the clarity and intellectual courage of a simple statement to that effect.
Why are we having such an absurd discussion? Oh yes, because simply saying "whoops" is apparently not an option for you today. :-)
Isn't that Cyclic reasoning?
All I am saying is that definitions exist, and you must attempt to use sensible or common ones, not ones which (for example) make entire categories simply disappear.
This is not cyclical in the slightest. It is based on the principle of exclusion (one of the foundations of rational thinking) -- which it does not attempt to prove. The exclusion principle is simply the belief that atomic proposition A is can be either true or false, but not both or neither.
After pondering your statement, I believe I have deciphered it. You are trying to say that it is irrational to allow a group to define itself: The definition creates the membership which sets the definition.
What you are forgetting is reality. In reality, things happen. A group of people with similar beliefs clump together for that reason. At some point, someone comes up with a name for that clump of people and the reasons which bind them.
Sometimes, over time, some groups attempt to redefine themselves. Together, they change their reason for being together, and thus the definition changes to reflect that reality. That's possible, and I don't deny it happens. But it is not appropriate (nor rational) for an outsider to attempt to redefine their own label right out from under them.
Which is what you just did.
The word Christian exists to distinguish those who are Christian, from those who arn't.
Of course.
If the definition only works for those who are Christian, then surely it's not a definition able to serve it's purpose.
I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to convey.
If you mean that it's wrong for Christians to decide who belongs to their group, or define themselves, then I must object. Doesn't the Elks Club get to decide who gets in? Does that make their name meaningless?
If you are saying I'm arguing that others outside are prevented from thinking about or attempting to apply the label, then you're also wrong. As long as someone fits a reasonable definition, the word may be applied to them, even by outsiders.
You seem to have forgotten why I wrote this. I was responding to your comment which said nobody was a really Christian. Again, I suggested that an outsider did not have the authority to re-write all the definitions to exclude everyone already in that group. I protested your attempt to change the definition, not that you shouldn't think about or use it.
But that's not a bad thing is it? Think of a scientist. He first divises a hypothesis, then performs a series of tests to provide evidence that supports this. That's not flawed logic, simply a method of investigation.
You're overlooking something important here.
An important idea in science is the matter of disprovability. Scientific theories can only be useful if they are potentially disprovable according to set rules. Two important rules are that you can't simply ignore data you don't like, and that you can't simply discard logic.
A real scientist will not attempt to hold fast to his idea no matter what the evidence says. He does not wander off into the realm where nothing is disprovable in order to continue to appear "right" -- if only to himself.
You, on the other hand, would make it so that NO ONE could ever be or not be a Christian, in order to avoid admitting Hitler was not -- by any common definition -- a Christian. No statement about being a Christian could ever be wrong or disproven in such a system.
In specific: in order keep "Hitler was a Christian" from being false, you have proposed a rule so broad that, if true, we must also accept "Ghengis Khan was a Christian", "Buddha was a Christian", and "Plato was a Christian". You do this apparently because you do not want to face the very mechanism -- admitting being wrong -- which is necessary for learning.
Well, I had a good read of our checklist, and am submitting quotes that may provide support for the idea that Hitler is Christian using our criteria...
You cite various Hitler quotes. Good for you! Now you're doing a least a little research. Good attempt, and I tip my hat to you for trying!
Sadly, many of your quotes don't prove the point you think they're proving, but that's moot to what I'm about to say here:
Your entire argument is based on a fallacy. It is based on the assumption that people cannot deceive, or at least that Hitler was not one who ever would have done so.
You are showing that Hitler sometimes said things that made him sound Christian. Of course. Haven't you yet understood, from the quotes that I have given you, that that was his strategy?
Look again at the definition of a Christian I gave you. Not one part is based on simply saying things. It is based on whether those things are true or not -- not merely whether someone says them.
Contrary to what you said, Jesus did not say it was impossible for anyone else to identify false followers of his. He knew this would be a problem, and thus taught:
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them."
By this he meant (and you should take note of the idea) that we have to look at what people do, not merely what they say, since lies are possible.
In your world, apparently not. At least not from Hitler -- a guy who never once deceived anyone. (Ask Joseph Stalin about that.)
Now concerning the details...
"For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
This is Hitlerean theology which sounds -- as it often did -- biblical. Did you read the link I gave you? Hitler was out to subvert Christianity, as many have, by redefining the terms. Hitler was big into "will" -- "will to power" and all that. Man's intentions making reality. Not too different from many New Agers.
But the bible doesn't depict the world as being created by God's will as much as by his "word". "And God said..." (Genesis 1) "In the beginning was the word." (John 1)
"I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity."
See the quotes I gave you where he said he would not attack Christianity -- at least not directly. He didn't. But he did hate it, think it absurd, and wanted it to die a death -- albeit a slow natural one.
You have to look at all the data, not just fixate on one statement while forgeting to juxapose it against others. You show a great capacity for selective thinking.
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Oh Hitler believed in a God (which he also called Nature) of course. He also wanted to have an Aryan Jesus. But so what? Again, simply using these terms doesn't show he believes in the biblical God or the biblical Jesus. All kinds of New Agers use these same terms, but with completely different meanings.
To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross"
Your best example.
Too bad it's being taken out of context -- in two ways. For one, you're taking out of it's immediate context. For two, as I've pointed out before, you're hoping to only look at this evidence while dismissing his clear repudiating of Christianity.
Hitler says here, "it was for this" that Jesus died. Weren't you even curious as to what "for this" he was talking about? Here is the entire speech. Look what he is saying:
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through that passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.
Hitler is telling us he either believes he is a Christian -- or at least he wants his audience to think so. But regardless, look at what he think the purpose of Jesus's death on the cross was: "To fight against the Jewish poison."
Note instead that Christians believe Jesus died to forgive our sins, not "fight the Jewish poison." Jesus himself was a Jew, and "King of the Jews" is a title which was applied to him.
Again, as I have told you, Hitler spent a good part of his life attempting to subvert Christianity. But he was smart enough to understand that a direct battle was a bad move.
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated."
Hitler believed God was essentially Nature. He was closer to a pantheist, like modern New Agers. When he says things like "fulfilling God's will", he is referring to his belief that the death of Jews and the emergence of the thousand-year Reich is the inevitable destiny of history. This is clearly simply is an appeal for people to serve the state, couched in language he think appeals to people.
In contrast, Christians believe God's will is for people would be saved from His judgement through Jesus, not destroy Jews. Regarding Jews, Christians believe such racism is explicitly against the will of God. (Gal 3:28)
"A man who knows a thing, who is aware of a given danger, and sees the possibility of a remedy with his own eyes, has the duty and obligation, by God, not to work 'silently,' but to stand up before the whole public against the evil and for its cure."
And did it occur to you to ask what this "danger" was? Again, it was the danger of a small group of religious people with strong moral values.
Again, Hitler believed in "God" of some kind, good and evil. It's irrelevant to keep pointing this out -- I agree already. But you keep forgetting to ask what he means by these words. Simply quoting Hitler saying "God" a lot does no more for you than your original argument, and it wastes both of our time.
5. Believes that the sentence for this kind of immorality way paid for by Jesus, by being crucified.
(again shown in his statement) "To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross"
Again, Hitler was clearly telling his audience that Jesus died to help fight the "Jewish poison", not to forgive sin.
Now ask yourself something: Could the person who took that out of context have missed that little detail? I sure couldn't. It was right there, right before the selected quote began.
So note this: you were deceived by someone who knowingly withheld evidence from you which might have changed your mind. And they also did the same thing by excluding the quotes I have given you, where Hitler explains what he is doing in regard to Christianity.
But instead of noting they're the liar, and being offended by them and how they deceived you on this matter, you're having an argument with me. Who has not lied to you at all.
Don't you get it? Can't you see?
Step back and look at Hitler again. What was he doing? He hated Jews and Christianity. He lied and deceived. He attempted to control people by directing their hatred against a minority religious group with strong moral values. He argued science would destroy religion. He just knew he couldn't take on Christianity directly in his time.
And here you are. Having believed a lie. From people who deceived you by hiding important evidence they must have known about. From people who are fast becoming anti-Zionists, as well as anti-Christian. Who believe science will destroy religion. And who are smart enough to know how to make arguments which appeal to their culture.
Do you not see that the whole "Hitler was a Christian" thing is itself part of the exact same mechanism Hitler used?
Roger,
Just one more quote on this topic. I think you can see from the following quote that Hitler's sense of religion (being created as a form of control) is much closer to your own -- and many of my critics -- than mine. In fact, the last quoted paragraph is almost exactly the belief about religion you have espoused (emph added):
I've always kept the Party aloof from religious questions. I've thus prevented my Catholic and Protestant supporters from forming groups against one another, and inadvertently knocking each other out with the bible and the sprinkler. So we never became involved with these churches' forms of worship. And if that has momentarily made my task a little more difficult, at least I've never run the risk of carrying grist to my opponents' mill. The help we would have provisionally obtained from a concordat [with the churches] would have quickly become a burden on us. In any case, the main thing is to be clever in this matter and not to look for a struggle where it can be avoided.
Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can't, or can't yet, be explained — that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can't satisfy them with the Party's Program. Time will go by until the moment when science can answer all the questions.
So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.
Originally, religion was merely a prop for human communities. It was a means, not an end in itself. It's only gradually that it became transformed in this direction, with the object of maintaining the rule of the priests, who can live only to the detriment of society collectively. [source]
Again, compare the last paragraph to your own statement:
Religion is another form of control. It provides the building block for law and politics (and rightly so). Think of Moses and the 10 commandments. Perhaps one of the first incarnation of a states' law.
You may agree with Hitler's statements. You may argue that -- in your view anyway -- he is essentially correct on this point. But nonetheless, that makes you much closer to his own sensibilities about religion than any Christian I could name.
I don't mean that as an insult. Just an eye-opener.
Best to you.
Why are you getting so defensive about this? Obviously you aren't going to be able to prove either way because Hitler isn't exactly here for you to ask him yourself. Agree to disagree. Look at all the space you've used arguing this.
friends---you both make points. I would also like to comment on the Hitler/ religeon thing--and that is this: Hitler used religeon as a propaganda tool for gaining more popularity among those conservatives who were wary of him. Hitler's minister of church affairs states in a speech in 1937, "...The party stands on the basis of Positive Christianity, and Positive Christianity is National Socialism....National Socialism is the doing of God's will. True Christianity is represented by the party, and the German people are now called by the party and especially by the Fuehrer to a real Christianity... The Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation." That excerpt was out of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. The lesson here is this: just because someone SAYS they represent christianity, means absolutely nothing. Heck--I think I'll call myself a "Rocket Scientist" today, and anyone who challenges the claim will be put down, or fired. -love, GWB
Obviously you aren't going to be able to prove either way because Hitler isn't exactly here for you to ask him yourself.
Yes, after all, Hitler's own statements of his intent are of no use whatsoever in analysing his views.
Guess you can never learn anything from history because the people involved are dead can't be contacted on the phone or by e-mail.
Doesn't this say it all?
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922
Rickdog,
Yes, it does, if you read closely. (Which you apparently don't, since I just answered this argument three comments ago.)
If you would examine your own quote, you'll notice it shows that Hitler believes Jesus "shed His blood upon the Cross" in order to "fight... against the Jewish poison."
Now, I ask you: Is that what Christians believe? No, last I checked, Christians believe Jesus died to forgive our sins (1 Cor 15:3) -- not "fight the Jewish poison". Those are two very different things.
This is not some minor, tangetial issue. That Jesus died to forgive sin is THE core unifying belief of Christianity. Surely even you know this.
Yet here, in your own quote, you've shown Hitler is trying to redefine Christianity to mean something it clearly doesn't. That doesn't make him a Christian any more than Reverend Sun Yung Moon, who does the same thing. It just means he was another socialist trying to redefine Christianity, in direct contradiction to the bible, for political reasons.
"Rickdog", just beause Hitler claims he is something (a Christian, an honest leader, whatever) doesn't mean you just have to just believe him. Moon claims he is the Christ. Do you believe that also? Double-check, dude. People do lie, you know.
Or are you saying Hitler was the kind of trustworthy guy whose testimony you accept at face value?
Apparently, yes, you are implying that.
Sigh. What a gullible age we live in. Those quickest to attack Christians are also most likely to take the word of Adolf Hitler, even when his own statements clearly show he is lying.
First off, do not drag muslims into this mix, this was a problem stemming from the christion dislike of jews because they ratted on their god. hittler was a christian, he was baptized, went to church... Hittler as well as europe was looking for a target to take out all their missery on since world war one happened. the jews seemed to hittler an appropriate target and he used religion as a means to promote his idealogy. the fact that most of the people in the country, mostly christians beleived it, tends to signify something. this was a dark time in christianity and a shamefull time.
hittler was a christian, he was baptized, went to church...
As a child he was involved with Christianity. If that's all it takes to be one, then how many self-proclaimed atheists out there are actually Christians?
JESUS WAS NOT A jew as is clear to any theologian or rabbi worth his salt TODAY. THE present day jew is clearly a descendant of cain consider their fruits, they precept the (5) rules of cain in all their dealings with CHRISTIANS ,Catholics,Protestants any and all of the varied types of Christians from orthodoxy to cultic. Uncle Adolph if you would truthfully research his life was a lover of his GERManic race and people .The German race are a racial master key that is even why so called german jews consider themselves acut above the others.As you must know Nordic Germans are Judah................and sadly true AH as all basically good charismatic leaders are have been besot with conspiracies and evil intended interlopers all around them. TRY some real RE-VISION in your researches.... bring history into accord with the facts as Harry Elmer Barnes suggested and get on with cleaning the real evil out of this world in the light of truth.
Better late than never...
JESUS WAS NOT A jew as is clear to any theologian or rabbi worth his salt TODAY.
EVERY reputable Christian theologian would admit that Jesus was Jewish. The Christian New Testament even makes a directly geneological claim regarding Jesus's Jewish ancestry. The same is true of early Christians: most of them were Jews. All you have to do is read the bible to see this.
And as far as I know, although most non-"Messianic" Rabbis would certainly not say Jesus was the Jewish messiah, they would certainly admit he was Jewish.
I think this individual makes my point pretty well: He's a modern-day sympathizer with Hitler, and the first thing he wants to do is undermine any connection between his idea of "Jesus" and the Jesus actually portrayed in the bible (whose very name is as Jewish as they get, and who was constantly called "rabbi").
You can believe in "Jesus" and be a member of many different religions. Muslims, for example, insist often they believe in Jesus. But the "Jesus" they believe in is quite different than the Jesus in the bible. These details matter.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Stage-Managed Terrorism |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Tsunami a "Wonderful Opportunity" »
|
I DONT THINK HE WAS NO MAN THAT GO TO CHURCH
Posted by: BIG D on February 11, 2005 09:33 AM