Hitler's Belt Buckle

MichaelEdits.com
MichaelEdits.com's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2010-06-21
User is offlineOffline

BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Godchild wrote:Anonymouse

Godchild wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

The usual not-a-real-christian stuff.

Btw, that guy spends an awful lot of time making the point that Hitler was nothing like Jesus. Which is a bit weird.

Anyway, I have no idea who Jim Walker is, so I only have mein kampf to go on. Like i said, since he turned out to be quite serious about his anti-semitism, what reason do I have to assume he was lying about his faith ?

If you were truly going on Mein Kampf, then you would have great reason to assume that he is lying.  From Volume 1, Chapters 6 & 12:

"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result"

Furthermore, the website I've cited is not just "not-a-real-christian stuff".  It discusses the integrity of Jim Walker, relevant historical facts about Hitler and Nazi Germany, the fallacies in reasoning used by Christian Hitler advocates, sufficient reasons to believe that the quotes from Hitler's table talks were legitimate, etc. 

That is about propaganda, not about lying. Nowhere in that quote does he admit or assume that the 'facts' he is referring to are not true - he just wants them to be drawn to the attention of 'the masses' in a way that they cannot ignore, and convince them. There may be a deiberate or unconscious selection of facts which support his general purpose, but that is another issue, and does not demonstrate lying.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Godchild (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:It's pretty

Anonymouse wrote:

It's pretty simple. Simply because he writes about propaganda and used it, does not mean that he was lying about his faith.

It does support the idea that he was, especially when you consider this in tandem with the fact that (1) while he endorses Christianity publically, he criticizes it privately, (2) Mein Kampf makes absolutely no references to any Christian doctrine, such as the Trinity, hypostatic union, resurrection, atonement, salvation by grace, or original sin, (3) the disparities between Jesus and Hitler, (4) the 1938 Nazi persecution of churches in Austria, and (5) Hitler's devotion to atheistic philosophers.

Godchild wrote:

And he consistenly told the truth as well. People can do both, you know.

Would you be willing to retract your previous statement regarding any truth-telling patterns that you notice when you read Hitler?

Quote:
I'm afraid I have several more legs to stand on than you do, since we were talking about his faith. You may not agree with the things he believed, but among christians, that's not really very unusual, is it ? For instance, he didn't believe that christ was a jew. I'm guessing you disagree. How that proves that he didn't have faith, I have no idea.

So far, your only legs include some book which probably is only available online and has no reviews or synopsis, and one quote from Hitler, which I'll address in a second. 

Quote:
I'll let Hitler himself answer that one :

"Herein lies the essential element of our mission: we must bring back to the German Volk the recognition of those teachings! For what did the falsification of the original concept of Christian love, of the community of fate before God and of socialism lead to? By their fruits ye shall know them! The suppression of freedom of opinion, the persecution of the true Christians, the vile mass murders of the Inquisition and the burning of witches, the armed campaigns against the people of free and true Christian faith, the destruction of towns and villages, the hauling away of their cattle and their goods, the destruction of their flourishing economies, and the condemnation of their leaders before tribunals, which, in their unrelenting hypocrisy, can only be described as balaphemous. That is the true face of those sanctimonious churches that have placed themselves between God and man, motivated by selfishness, personal greed for recognition and gain, and the ambition to maintain their high-handed willfulness against Christ's deep understanding of the necessity of a socialist community of men and nations. We must turn all the sentiments of the Volk, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid Phariseeism of personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ's words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers! This youth will, wit loathing and contempt, abandon those hypocrites who have Christ on their lips but the devil in their hearts, who give alms in order to remain undisturbed as they themselves throw their money around, who invoke the Fatherland as they fill their own purses by the toil of others,"

Ok.  I can approach this from several angles.

(1) You did not cite a source.  The quote is not from his table talks, it's from a book called "Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant" written by a fellow nazi Otto Wagener.  Here is a snippet from a review of this book: "Memoirs of a Confidant introduces us to Hitler the misunderstood idealist whose vision of peace and prosperity was distorted by his gangster lieutenants. The author of this benign nonsense was Otto Wagener, a forgotten Nazi who served as storm trooper chief of staff and party economist until his career was derailed by Rival Hermann Göring (Time Magazine, April 2005)."

(2) We are not arguing about Hitler's personal interpretation of Christianity.  We are asking whether or not he was a Christian.  Possessing faith in Christ means absolutely nothing if you are not already intellectually embracing the entire body of doctrine.  If I believe that Jesus is a little green dwarf who lives on Oberon, then my faith in Jesus does not mean anything.  Christianity is more than just labeling something "Jesus" and worshipping it.  Therefore, Hitler's comments are wholly inconsistent with actually having faith in Christ.

(3) Hitler denounced Christianity, but he admired Jesus for what he understood him to be:  A liberator of Judaism.  This is, in fact, historically inaccurate.  "Jesus often needed to correct his audience's interpretation of his message as political rather than spiritual (John 6:15; John 18:36; Acts 1:6), and on several occasions, he urged those who experienced his power not to report the miracles, possibly to prevent such misinterpretation (Matt. 12:16; Mark 1:44).  (http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2800)" 

(4) Muslims also believe that Jesus existed and that he was a great prophet.  Are they Christians as well simply because they admire Jesus?

(5) Hitler made numerous statements endorsing Christianity.  The point is, we have every reason to assume that he was lying, based on the evidence presented. 

Quote:
It's in the title. Just read it and you'll find out.

Have you read it?


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Godchild wrote:It does

Godchild wrote:
It does support the idea that he was, especially when you consider this in tandem with the fact that (1) while he endorses Christianity publically, he criticizes it privately, (2) Mein Kampf makes absolutely no references to any Christian doctrine, such as the Trinity, hypostatic union, resurrection, atonement, salvation by grace, or original sin, (3) the disparities between Jesus and Hitler, (4) the 1938 Nazi persecution of churches in Austria, and (5) Hitler's devotion to atheistic philosophers.

1) I already explained you can have a problem with christianity and still have faith in christ. 2) Why should it ? It's not supposed to be a thesis on christian doctrine. 3) Yeah, I think I already expressed my puzzlement at that particular argument. 4) Outlaw the worship of christ, did they ?  5) All that cherrypicking can hardly be called devotion. Christians aren't averse to "borrowing" any ideas they think they can use.

So no, still no support for the idea that he didn't have faith in christ.

Godchild wrote:
Would you be willing to retract your previous statement regarding any truth-telling patterns that you notice when you read Hitler?

You mean those quotes were from "mein kampf" ? Yikes ! *checks* No, they weren't. So, no, I wouldn't.

Btw, do you really think a guy who's planning to conquer Europe, should mention this in a letter he's writing to a politician of a neighbouring country ? That would be a little stupid, don't you think ?

Godchild wrote:
So far, your only legs include some book which probably is only available online and has no reviews or synopsis,

Uhm, no, I'm actually still standing quite comfortably on mein kampf.

Godchild wrote:
and one quote from Hitler, which I'll address in a second. Ok.  I can approach this from several angles.

Yeah, I'm sure you can.

Godchild wrote:
(1) You did not cite a source.  The quote is not from his table talks, it's from a book called "Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant" written by a fellow nazi Otto Wagener.  Here is a snippet from a review of this book: "Memoirs of a Confidant introduces us to Hitler the misunderstood idealist whose vision of peace and prosperity was distorted by his gangster lieutenants. The author of this benign nonsense was Otto Wagener, a forgotten Nazi who served as storm trooper chief of staff and party economist until his career was derailed by Rival Hermann Göring (Time Magazine, April 2005)."

(2) We are not arguing about Hitler's personal interpretation of Christianity.  We are asking whether or not he was a Christian.  Possessing faith in Christ means absolutely nothing if you are not already intellectually embracing the entire body of doctrine.  If I believe that Jesus is a little green dwarf who lives on Oberon, then my faith in Jesus does not mean anything.  Christianity is more than just labeling something "Jesus" and worshipping it.  Therefore, Hitler's comments are wholly inconsistent with actually having faith in Christ.

(3) Hitler denounced Christianity, but he admired Jesus for what he understood him to be:  A liberator of Judaism.  This is, in fact, historically inaccurate.  "Jesus often needed to correct his audience's interpretation of his message as political rather than spiritual (John 6:15; John 18:36; Acts 1:6), and on several occasions, he urged those who experienced his power not to report the miracles, possibly to prevent such misinterpretation (Matt. 12:16; Mark 1:44).  (http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2800)" 

(4) Muslims also believe that Jesus existed and that he was a great prophet.  Are they Christians as well simply because they admire Jesus?

(5) Hitler made numerous statements endorsing Christianity.  The point is, we have every reason to assume that he was lying, based on the evidence presented.

1) Are you trying to say the quote wasn't genuine ? The review you quote seems to disagree : "There is sufficient documentation to authenticate Wagener's life and writing, a comforting thought after the embarrassment of the bogus Hitler diaries and other artifacts fobbed off as pieces of the true Hakenkreuz. The only caution is that Hitler's commentaries and fanciful redundancies on history, race and destiny were reconstructed by Wagener 14 to 17 years after the events he describes. But since Hitler made a lasting impression on millions, it is not farfetched to assume that a disciple who spent hundreds of hours basking in Führerspeak could reproduce the substance and tone of his master's voice."

2) Hang around some fundie christians, and you'll hear weirder things about jesus than him being a green dwarf. Did you know, for example, that jesus was a caucasian who spoke english ? I guess they don't have faith in christ either then. Wow, we're really thinning out the herd here.

Labelling something Jesus and worshipping it is what all christians do. What else can they do ?

3) His interpretation was historically inaccurate, you say ? So what ? He has faith. What are you going to do about it ? I'm sure that if he was still alive, the both of you could have many interesting theological conversations, as many christians do all the time.

4) I don't think muslims would refer to jesus as "my Lord and Savior".

5) Evidence that he was lying about his faith in christ ? Where is it ?

Godchild wrote:

Have you read it?

Nope, I like to read stuff like that in my own language. 

I did my best to find something comparable and in english for your buddy with the website, but I had to trust other people on their word, so sorry if you can't find it in your local bookstore.

Anyway, that was just for him. We don't really seem to need it. I have the quotes where Hitler expresses his faith in christ. You have nothing that proves he was lying about that. Heck, considering the enormous variety in christian faith, you don't even have reason to doubt it.

If you have anything that doesn't amount to not-a-real-christian, I'd still love to hear it.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Aw shucks,  too bad

  Aw shucks,  too bad Martin Luther didn't commission a similar belt buckle, then there wouldn't be all this debate in this thread over whether the virulent anti-semite was also a real Christian.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Godchild (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Godchild

Anonymouse wrote:

Godchild wrote:
It does support the idea that he was, especially when you consider this in tandem with the fact that (1) while he endorses Christianity publically, he criticizes it privately, (2) Mein Kampf makes absolutely no references to any Christian doctrine, such as the Trinity, hypostatic union, resurrection, atonement, salvation by grace, or original sin, (3) the disparities between Jesus and Hitler, (4) the 1938 Nazi persecution of churches in Austria, and (5) Hitler's devotion to atheistic philosophers.

1) I already explained you can have a problem with christianity and still have faith in christ. 2) Why should it ? It's not supposed to be a thesis on christian doctrine. 3) Yeah, I think I already expressed my puzzlement at that particular argument. 4) Outlaw the worship of christ, did they ?  5) All that cherrypicking can hardly be called devotion. Christians aren't averse to "borrowing" any ideas they think they can use.

So no, still no support for the idea that he didn't have faith in christ.

(1) This is not a simple problem with Christianity.  This is someone who wished Christianity would die and actually persecuted Christians.  The only reason he did not do so in Germany on a large scale was that the Reich Concordat with the Vatican had already established the freedom of Catholic Church in Germany, such that they were prohibited from interfering with political affairs, which allowed Hitler to come into power to begin with.  Even then, this was repeatedly broken with the closing of various Catholic institutions.  Hitler went out of his way to exclude the Church from political affairs, even though he constantly invoked the church publically and made it appear that his agenda had a religious bridal.  Again, Christianity is not a matter of labeling something Jesus and worshipping it.  I could call my pizza "Jesus" and worship it, that does not make me a Christian.

(2) You are attempting to establish a metric by which we can judge that someone is a Christian.  Christianity consists of a body of doctrine.  Can you cite any books, speeches, or private conversations where Hitler affirms the Trinity, hypostatic union, resurrection, atonement, salvation by grace, or original sin?  If you cannot, then by what criteria are using to say that he was a Christian?  Simply because he expressed admiration for what he thought Jesus was?  That is not good enough.  By that metric, all Muslims are Christians.

(3) No, you did not because I have not made that argument yet.  Jesus never advocated Aryan supremacy, Hitler did.  Jesus never tried attaining any political power even though he could have, since he had all the means to lead a revolution against Rome.  Hitler did attain political power.  Jesus practiced non-violence, Hitler did not.  Jesus emphasized love for one's enemies, Hitler advocated death towards one's enemies.  Jesus says in the Bible that he does not know those who call his name but bear no fruits of salvation, Hitler does not bear any fruits of salvation.  Again, labeling something "Jesus" and worshipping it is not enough to qualify one's self as a Christian.

(4) As I explained, the Reich Concordat with the Vatican helped him attain political power to begin with and thus prevented him from outlawing Christianity in Germany.  Even then, he still violated it with the closing of various nunneries, monasteries, orphanages, kindergartens, semanaries, and publishing houses.

(5) It is not just cherry picking.  Hitler's primary inspiration was Nietzche and most of Mein Kampf is directly lifted from Nietzche's philosophy. "Such rantings from one of Germany's most original minds must have struck a responsive chord in Hitler's littered mind. At any rate he appropriated them for his own--not only the thoughts but the philosopher's penchant for grotesque exaggeration, and often his very words. "Lords of the Earth" is a familiar expression in Mein Kampf. That in the end Hitler considered himself the superman of Nietzsche's prophecy cannot be doubted.... (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/Nietzsche.html)."

Quote:
You mean those quotes were from "mein kampf" ? Yikes ! *checks* No, they weren't. So, no, I wouldn't.

First, you said that he was telling the truth about propaganda and that you are noticing a pattern.

Then you say that Hitler tells the truth and he lies. 

What pattern are you noticing?

Quote:
Btw, do you really think a guy who's planning to conquer Europe, should mention this in a letter he's writing to a politician of a neighbouring country ? That would be a little stupid, don't you think ?

Should mention what?

Quote:
Uhm, no, I'm actually still standing quite comfortably on mein kampf.

Again, Mein Kampf makes no mention of any Christian doctrine.  It simply mentions things like Providence, a Creator, Almighty, etc.  Earlier, you said that he was not devoted to any particular atheist philosophers because he just cherry picked.  Aside from the fact that the statement is false, why does his cherry picking of certain things regarding the life of Jesus then qualify him as a devout Christian?  You are special pleading.

Quote:
1) Are you trying to say the quote wasn't genuine ? The review you quote seems to disagree : "There is sufficient documentation to authenticate Wagener's life and writing, a comforting thought after the embarrassment of the bogus Hitler diaries and other artifacts fobbed off as pieces of the true Hakenkreuz. The only caution is that Hitler's commentaries and fanciful redundancies on history, race and destiny were reconstructed by Wagener 14 to 17 years after the events he describes. But since Hitler made a lasting impression on millions, it is not farfetched to assume that a disciple who spent hundreds of hours basking in Führerspeak could reproduce the substance and tone of his master's voice."

I do not dispute that Hitler said these things.  He said many positive things about Christianity, which you can quote from his speeches going back to the 1920s.  The point is, knowledge here is cumulative and not singular.  You cannot understand these issues apart from understanding the historical context in which they arise.  The book you've cited (well, you did not cite it at all actually, most likely on purpose) is unreliable in establishing the actual character and internal belief system of a guy who was responsible for the deaths of millions.  In addition to what he said publically, you have to examine what he said privately, what he actually did, his chief inspirations, Germany during that time period, etc.  Otherwise, you are just cherry picking facts. 

Quote:
2) Hang around some fundie christians, and you'll hear weirder things about jesus than him being a green dwarf. Did you know, for example, that jesus was a caucasian who spoke english ? I guess they don't have faith in christ either then. Wow, we're really thinning out the herd here.

It does not matter what Jesus' language or ethnicity was.  What matters is that he, in his physical and spiritual suffering, took God's wrath upon himself for mankind.  Anyway, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that Jesus spoke English, unless you are talking about five year old kids who are just starting out in Sunday School.  Simply differing in minute details like skin color or language has nothing to do with whether or not you are a Christian.  Christianity, as I've said, is characterized by a body of essential doctrine, none of which was affirmed by Hitler.

May I ask, what expertise do you have in Christian theology?

Quote:
Labelling something Jesus and worshipping it is what all christians do. What else can they do ?

Nevermind.  This statement answers the previous question.

Quote:
3) His interpretation was historically inaccurate, you say ? So what ? He has faith. What are you going to do about it ? I'm sure that if he was still alive, the both of you could have many interesting theological conversations, as many christians do all the time.

Are we going to get into deconstructionism now?  Any written text will inevitably be filtered through the mind of a particular reader.  If you want to argue that no one particular interpretation can be determined as being correct, then you adopt a nihilistic position whereby nobody can have meaningful discourse on anything because our words are being interpreted.  If you want to say that this only applies to the Bible, then you are just special pleading.

Quote:
4) I don't think muslims would refer to jesus as "my Lord and Savior".

Ok.  I believe that the pizza I ate yesterday was Jesus, my Lord and Savior.  Therefore, I am a Christian.

Why do you get to establish a metric by which someone may be called a Christian?  You were just arguing deconstructionism, so by your own metric, we cannot trust your interpretation anymore than mine can be trusted.

Quote:
5) Evidence that he was lying about his faith in christ ? Where is it ?

*Sigh*

Did the conversation that we just had not take place?  Or are you like a fish that has no memory?

Quote:
Nope, I like to read stuff like that in my own language. 

I did my best to find something comparable and in english for your buddy with the website, but I had to trust other people on their word, so sorry if you can't find it in your local bookstore.

So, you recommend books that you do not even read or know anything about? 

Quote:
Anyway, that was just for him. We don't really seem to need it. I have the quotes where Hitler expresses his faith in christ.

You have not given any quotes, though you do not have to.  I've seen them.  The difference is, you have no grasp of historical facts and when confronted with them, you simply stick your head in the sand and pretend that the previous conversation never took place.

I do not see why you are so adament about proving that Hitler was a Christian.  Even if Hitler was not a Christian, that would not automatically vindicate Christianity.  Obviously, you are trying to win a game here, but you've already lost. 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
On the OP momentarily

 

Gott mit uns is old - it was around in the 1700s as a toast. The Prussian Guards wore Gott mit uns belt buckles in world war one and because these guys were elite shock troops, it became fashionable throughout the entire Wehrmacht by the mid-1930s. It's not as if Hitler personally ordered the guys to wear these belts, it was a cultural thing. 

Maybe the germans thought the belts would encourage god to protect them or something but more likely it was just a way to add to their confidence. By all accounts, the bastards could fight, atheists, christians, jews (in WWI), the lot of them. 

My evangelical minister father fought the japs in world war 2 as a christian. He always expressed remorse later in life but in his diaries he shows the sort of enthusiasm you would expect a boy of 22 to show to bombing the shit out of enemies bent on destroying his nation in his 400mph fighter plane.

Those belt buckles don't mean anything either way in my estimation. The worst war crimes weren't carried out by the regular army anyway and there are reports they were outraged by the atrocities carried out in their collective name.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Godchild wrote:(1) This is

Godchild wrote:

(1) This is not a simple problem with Christianity.  This is someone who wished Christianity would die and actually persecuted Christians.  The only reason he did not do so in Germany on a large scale was that the Reich Concordat with the Vatican had already established the freedom of Catholic Church in Germany, such that they were prohibited from interfering with political affairs, which allowed Hitler to come into power to begin with.  Even then, this was repeatedly broken with the closing of various Catholic institutions.  Hitler went out of his way to exclude the Church from political affairs, even though he constantly invoked the church publically and made it appear that his agenda had a religious bridal.  Again, Christianity is not a matter of labeling something Jesus and worshipping it.  I could call my pizza "Jesus" and worship it, that does not make me a Christian.

(2) You are attempting to establish a metric by which we can judge that someone is a Christian.  Christianity consists of a body of doctrine.  Can you cite any books, speeches, or private conversations where Hitler affirms the Trinity, hypostatic union, resurrection, atonement, salvation by grace, or original sin?  If you cannot, then by what criteria are using to say that he was a Christian?  Simply because he expressed admiration for what he thought Jesus was?  That is not good enough.  By that metric, all Muslims are Christians.

(3) No, you did not because I have not made that argument yet.  Jesus never advocated Aryan supremacy, Hitler did.  Jesus never tried attaining any political power even though he could have, since he had all the means to lead a revolution against Rome.  Hitler did attain political power.  Jesus practiced non-violence, Hitler did not.  Jesus emphasized love for one's enemies, Hitler advocated death towards one's enemies.  Jesus says in the Bible that he does not know those who call his name but bear no fruits of salvation, Hitler does not bear any fruits of salvation.  Again, labeling something "Jesus" and worshipping it is not enough to qualify one's self as a Christian.

(4) As I explained, the Reich Concordat with the Vatican helped him attain political power to begin with and thus prevented him from outlawing Christianity in Germany.  Even then, he still violated it with the closing of various nunneries, monasteries, orphanages, kindergartens, semanaries, and publishing houses.

(5) It is not just cherry picking.  Hitler's primary inspiration was Nietzche and most of Mein Kampf is directly lifted from Nietzche's philosophy. "Such rantings from one of Germany's most original minds must have struck a responsive chord in Hitler's littered mind. At any rate he appropriated them for his own--not only the thoughts but the philosopher's penchant for grotesque exaggeration, and often his very words. "Lords of the Earth" is a familiar expression in Mein Kampf. That in the end Hitler considered himself the superman of Nietzsche's prophecy cannot be doubted.... (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/Nietzsche.html)."

1) You and him have different ideas about what christianity should be . As for the pizza worship, you do know that some christians will do that if they think they can see a face in there, right ?

2) I'm not attempting to establish anything. I'm simply confronted by many different versions of what faith in christ should mean. Fight it out amongst yourselves.

3) Who's got the memory of a fish ? Read post # 42 again. I never said jesus was like hitler, so I'm not sure what that's all about.

4) So the answer is "no"

5) http://www.nietzsche.at/nietzsche_und_hitler.htm

I'd look for an english book making the same point, but I'd only get accused of "recommending something I haven't read or don't know anything about". I'm just going to trust that you know enough German to know what "Zu größten Teilen nein" means.

Godchild wrote:
First, you said that he was telling the truth about propaganda and that you are noticing a pattern.

Then you say that Hitler tells the truth and he lies. What pattern are you noticing?

That he holds to opinions he expresses in mein kampf. I already told you that.

Godchild wrote:
Should mention what?

Lol, answer's in the first part of the sentence. Seriously, what's going on here ?

Godchild wrote:
Again, Mein Kampf makes no mention of any Christian doctrine.  It simply mentions things like Providence, a Creator, Almighty, etc.  Earlier, you said that he was not devoted to any particular atheist philosophers because he just cherry picked.  Aside from the fact that the statement is false, why does his cherry picking of certain things regarding the life of Jesus then qualify him as a devout Christian?  You are special pleading.

First, same link again : http://www.nietzsche.at/nietzsche_und_hitler.htm

And again, mein kampf was not a religious exam.

Godchild wrote:
I do not dispute that Hitler said these things.  He said many positive things about Christianity, which you can quote from his speeches going back to the 1920s.  The point is, knowledge here is cumulative and not singular.  You cannot understand these issues apart from understanding the historical context in which they arise.  The book you've cited (well, you did not cite it at all actually, most likely on purpose) is unreliable in establishing the actual character and internal belief system of a guy who was responsible for the deaths of millions.  In addition to what he said publically, you have to examine what he said privately, what he actually did, his chief inspirations, Germany during that time period, etc.  Otherwise, you are just cherry picking facts.

Again, there is no quote, privately or publically, where he denies his faith in christ. Neither his chief inspirations, germany during that time period or what he did can change that.

(Btw, I'm not sure why I would have "on purpose", not given you the title of a book when the quote was so easily googled. What would I have gained by that ?)

Godchild wrote:
It does not matter what Jesus' language or ethnicity was.  What matters is that he, in his physical and spiritual suffering, took God's wrath upon himself for mankind.  Anyway, I have yet to meet anyone who believes that Jesus spoke English, unless you are talking about five year old kids who are just starting out in Sunday School.  Simply differing in minute details like skin color or language has nothing to do with whether or not you are a Christian.  Christianity, as I've said, is characterized by a body of essential doctrine, none of which was affirmed by Hitler.

Did he deny it anywhere ? Cause frankly, that's a quote I would like to read.

Godchild wrote:
May I ask, what expertise do you have in Christian theology?

As much as any good catholic schoolboy. Btw, would that be true christian theology ?

Godchild wrote:
Nevermind.  This statement answers the previous question.

Actually, that wasn't a rethorical question, but sure, nevermind.

Godchild wrote:
Are we going to get into deconstructionism now?  Any written text will inevitably be filtered through the mind of a particular reader.  If you want to argue that no one particular interpretation can be determined as being correct, then you adopt a nihilistic position whereby nobody can have meaningful discourse on anything because our words are being interpreted.  If you want to say that this only applies to the Bible, then you are just special pleading.

Nope, I'm pointing out that the two of you can't work out your differences on the subject, for the simple reason that he's dead.

Godchild wrote:
Ok.  I believe that the pizza I ate yesterday was Jesus, my Lord and Savior.  Therefore, I am a Christian.

The priest was out of wafers so he blessed your pizza ? That could work.

Godchild wrote:
Why do you get to establish a metric by which someone may be called a Christian?  You were just arguing deconstructionism, so by your own metric, we cannot trust your interpretation anymore than mine can be trusted.

Again, I'm not establishing anything. I just see two people, both of them claiming faith in christ, and one of them's dead. There's no way to tell if he couldn't have passed your religous exam.

Godchild wrote:
*Sigh*

Did the conversation that we just had not take place?  Or are you like a fish that has no memory?

I'm kinda feeling the same way about you.

Godchild wrote:
So, you recommend books that you do not even read or know anything about?

Excuse me for assuming you don't speak german. Okay then, don't read the english version of the same arguments.  Read them here : http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f66/hitler-und-die-kirche-9572/

Godchild wrote:
You have not given any quotes,

????

Godchild wrote:
though you do not have to.  I've seen them.  The difference is, you have no grasp of historical facts and when confronted with them, you simply stick your head in the sand and pretend that the previous conversation never took place.

Seems I can respond to people's arguments while having my head stuck in sand. Wow.

Godchild wrote:
I do not see why you are so adament about proving that Hitler was a Christian.  Even if Hitler was not a Christian, that would not automatically vindicate Christianity.  Obviously, you are trying to win a game here, but you've already lost. 

I'm not interested in winning a game. I just asked a question that still hasn't gotten an answer that makes any sense.

 


Godchild (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:1) You and

Anonymouse wrote:

1) You and him have different ideas about what christianity should be . As for the pizza worship, you do know that some christians will do that if they think they can see a face in there, right ?

It is not that we have different ideas about what Christianity should be.  It is that I know what Christianity is.  Aside from the interesting fact that Hitler had atheists among his closest confidants (such as Martin Bormann), those of his henchmen who claimed to represent the religious agenda propagated by Hitler in his speeches believed that the essential element of Christ's preaching was struggle as opposed to forgiveness, that Christ died fighting Jews (overlooking the fact that he would not defend himself when pressed by the High Priests and that he himself was Jewish), that God is sought in ourselves (ignoring our fallen nature), and that consequentialism was a fundamental teaching of Christ (ignoring salvation by grace). 

What's important, though, is not so much that Hitler and the Nazis did not understand the Bible, but moreso that Hitler did not even like Christianity, as evidenced by the things previously cited.  He has expressed admiration for Jesus as a figure of rebellion and certainly the Bible provided enough fodder for him to propagate the same "Jews killed Christ" spiel that is still popular amongst the ignorant.  However, Muslims also admire Jesus, but they hate Christianity.  Simply expressing admiration for Jesus is not being a Christian.  Furthermore, since I'm the only one in this conversation sensible enough to acknowledge that Hitler's credibility was severely lacking, I highly doubt that he even really admired Jesus as a person.  Simply because he does not mention Jesus during his table talks does not mean that he liked Jesus.  It even says in Mein Kampf that public statements need not be truthful, so long as they sway the masses.

Quote:
2) I'm not attempting to establish anything. I'm simply confronted by many different versions of what faith in christ should mean. Fight it out amongst yourselves.

No, I specifically mentioned the admiration for Christ among Muslims and you qualified it by saying that they do not affirm Christ as their lord and savior.  Therefore, you are establishing some metric arbitrarily and will continue doing so until your position starts to make sense.  I do not see that happening anytime soon.

Quote:
3) Who's got the memory of a fish ? Read post # 42 again. I never said jesus was like hitler, so I'm not sure what that's all about.

You said that you expressed "puzzlement" at this argument, so I gave it to you.

Quote:
4) So the answer is "no"

The answer is that you are continuing to arbitrarily establish a particular metric where the facts I point out are irrelevant, such as this particular instance where the significant fact that Nazis persecuted Christians is ignored by you on the grounds that it is not "outlawing" worship, when I specifically mentioned a relevant historical fact that really puts the whole thing into perspective on why Hitler, in all his anti-religious splendor, did not formally establish provisions for the persecution of Christians.

Quote:
5) http://www.nietzsche.at/nietzsche_und_hitler.htm

I'd look for an english book making the same point, but I'd only get accused of "recommending something I haven't read or don't know anything about". I'm just going to trust that you know enough German to know what "Zu größten Teilen nein" means.

Actually, I do not know German at all.  Do you?

If not, why are you citing things that you cannot even read?  Is this just quote mining, or have you actually researched any of this?

Quote:
That he holds to opinions he expresses in mein kampf. I already told you that.

How so?

In Mein Kampf, he speaks highly of Christianity.  He promotes an Aryan vision of Christ which views him (Christ) as a figurehead for ethnic cleansing.  As an aside, this worldview was actually condemned by Pope Pius at the time.

In his table talks, he says that Christianity ought to be destroyed.  He makes no qualification on any specific kind of Christianity.  He says, outright, that Christianity is one of the great scourges of history.  His leading advisers were atheists as were his most influential philosophers.

Quote:
Lol, answer's in the first part of the sentence. Seriously, what's going on here ?

Sorry, your grammar is poor.  The sentence should read: "Do you really think that a guy should mention in a letter he is writing to a politician that he is planning the conquer Europe?"

So, we can both agree that Hitler was dishonest, no?

Quote:
First, same link again : http://www.nietzsche.at/nietzsche_und_hitler.htm

And again, mein kampf was not a religious exam.

I cannot respond to things written in languages that I do not understand.

If no Christian doctrine is in Mein Kampf, and Hitler only praises Christianity publically, and he admits in Mein Kampf that the purpose of public speaking is swaying the public, and he persecutes Christians, and he denounces Christianity privately, and his favorite philosophers are atheists, and his closest friends are atheists,... then what is your basis for asserting that Hitler is a Christian?

Quote:
Again, there is no quote, privately or publically, where he denies his faith in christ. Neither his chief inspirations, germany during that time period or what he did can change that.

Barack Obama never privately or publically denied his faith in Brahma.  Therefore, Obama is a Hindu.

Quote:
(Btw, I'm not sure why I would have "on purpose", not given you the title of a book when the quote was so easily googled. What would I have gained by that ?)

The book was written by a friend of Hitler and presents a sympathetic picture of a guy whom we know to be a sick twisted wretch of a man.  This does not conclusively prove that the book is unreliable, but we would have great reason to question it in light of historical fact.

Quote:
Did he deny it anywhere ? Cause frankly, that's a quote I would like to read.

Your logic is totally skewed.  He does not deny it, therefore he must believe it?

Quote:
As much as any good catholic schoolboy. Btw, would that be true christian theology ?

Are we going back to deconstructionism now?  Yes, the Bible is interpreted many different ways.  How does that vindicate atheism? 

Quote:
Nope, I'm pointing out that the two of you can't work out your differences on the subject, for the simple reason that he's dead.

We have historical record and copies of the Bible.  I do not need Hitler to be alive in order to disprove what he has said.

Quote:
Again, I'm not establishing anything. I just see two people, both of them claiming faith in christ, and one of them's dead. There's no way to tell if he couldn't have passed your religous exam.

You've been arguing that Hitler is a Christian.  Therefore, you have some idea in your mind of what a Christian is, such that you are able to categorize Adolf Hitler as being one.  Either that, or you think that anybody who says they are a Christian must be a Christian because, well, they say so.

Quote:
Excuse me for assuming you don't speak german. Okay then, don't read the english version of the same arguments.  Read them here : http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f66/hitler-und-die-kirche-9572/

You are citing sources that I am unable to read.  If you are going to cite something which you present as invalidating my point, then I should be able to read it.  Otherwise, how can you establish that I am wrong on the basis of your source?

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Godchild wrote:It is not

Godchild wrote:
It is not that we have different ideas about what Christianity should be.  It is that I know what Christianity is.  Aside from the interesting fact that Hitler had atheists among his closest confidants (such as Martin Bormann), those of his henchmen who claimed to represent the religious agenda propagated by Hitler in his speeches believed that the essential element of Christ's preaching was struggle as opposed to forgiveness, that Christ died fighting Jews (overlooking the fact that he would not defend himself when pressed by the High Priests and that he himself was Jewish), that God is sought in ourselves (ignoring our fallen nature), and that consequentialism was a fundamental teaching of Christ (ignoring salvation by grace).

There are still people who believe those things and call themselves christians. You say they're not ? I don't think that's going to impress them much, or make them change their mind.

Godchild wrote:
What's important, though, is not so much that Hitler and the Nazis did not understand the Bible, but moreso that Hitler did not even like Christianity, as evidenced by the things previously cited.  He has expressed admiration for Jesus as a figure of rebellion and certainly the Bible provided enough fodder for him to propagate the same "Jews killed Christ" spiel that is still popular amongst the ignorant.  However, Muslims also admire Jesus, but they hate Christianity.  Simply expressing admiration for Jesus is not being a Christian.  Furthermore, since I'm the only one in this conversation sensible enough to acknowledge that Hitler's credibility was severely lacking, I highly doubt that he even really admired Jesus as a person.  Simply because he does not mention Jesus during his table talks does not mean that he liked Jesus.  It even says in Mein Kampf that public statements need not be truthful, so long as they sway the masses.

But we still have the private statements. Wich you choose to dismiss because they were written down by "a friend" .

 

Godchild wrote:
No, I specifically mentioned the admiration for Christ among Muslims and you qualified it by saying that they do not affirm Christ as their lord and savior.  Therefore, you are establishing some metric arbitrarily and will continue doing so until your position starts to make sense.  I do not see that happening anytime soon.

Sorry, but I most certainly am confronted with different interpretations of what faith in christ should mean. Even just on the internet, do you have any idea how many people claim to know exactly what having faith in christ should mean ? Some of them change their mind in mid-sentence. They all have their rehearsed arguments, their links, their mountains of text,... Are you going to sort all that out ? Don't see that happening anytime soon either.

Godchild wrote:
You said that you expressed "puzzlement" at this argument, so I gave it to you.

I already read it on the site. Just repeating it didn't make it any less weird.

Godchild wrote:
The answer is that you are continuing to arbitrarily establish a particular metric where the facts I point out are irrelevant, such as this particular instance where the significant fact that Nazis persecuted Christians is ignored by you on the grounds that it is not "outlawing" worship, when I specifically mentioned a relevant historical fact that really puts the whole thing into perspective on why Hitler, in all his anti-religious splendor, did not formally establish provisions for the persecution of Christians.

Is this fact relevant too ? :

BERLIN, May 13. - In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.

The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members ..."

[New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2, on Hitler's outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree]

Godchild wrote:
Actually, I do not know German at all.  Do you?

Yeah, it was either that or three more hours of math. It's one of the three official languages here. I fucking hate bloody umlauts, though. Better at speaking it than writing it.

Godchild wrote:
If not, why are you citing things that you cannot even read?  Is this just quote mining, or have you actually researched any of this?

If you can read the source material, then why not ? You can bypass a lot of distractions that way, plus, the people on that forum I linked have a very no-nosense approach to these kinds of discussions. One of them gave me the title of that book as an english alternative to the many articles and documents linked in their Hitler and the church threads.

I have no reason to doubt him, but I'm also not going to buy that book and read it just to check, so yeah, I guess we're kind of stuck.

Godchild wrote:
How so?

In Mein Kampf, he speaks highly of Christianity.  He promotes an Aryan vision of Christ which views him (Christ) as a figurehead for ethnic cleansing.  As an aside, this worldview was actually condemned by Pope Pius at the time.

In his table talks, he says that Christianity ought to be destroyed.  He makes no qualification on any specific kind of Christianity.  He says, outright, that Christianity is one of the great scourges of history.  His leading advisers were atheists as were his most influential philosophers.

In the first he's talking about his version of christianity,  in the other one (edited by an athiest who apparently had a real problem with catholicism) it's the version of christianity he obviously doesn't agree with.

Godchild wrote:
Sorry, your grammar is poor.  The sentence should read: "Do you really think that a guy should mention in a letter he is writing to a politician that he is planning the conquer Europe?"

So, we can both agree that Hitler was dishonest, no?

We can agree that he wasn't stupid.

Godchild wrote:
I cannot respond to things written in languages that I do not understand.

If no Christian doctrine is in Mein Kampf, and Hitler only praises Christianity publically, and he admits in Mein Kampf that the purpose of public speaking is swaying the public, and he persecutes Christians, and he denounces Christianity privately, and his favorite philosophers are atheists, and his closest friends are atheists,... then what is your basis for asserting that Hitler is a Christian?

Again, no christian doctrine in mein kampf because there doesn't need to be , he praises his version of christianity, you can "sway the public" by telling them things you really believe in as well, he didn't just persecute christians, he denounces the version of christianity he doesn't like, it remains to be proven if he even understands anything about the philosophies he borrows from , and so what ? My closest friend is a christian (well, he says he is. I guess I should have you check him out first before I believe that ), and I'm still an atheist.

Godchild wrote:
Barack Obama never privately or publically denied his faith in Brahma.  Therefore, Obama is a Hindu.

Oh ? Know him privately, do you ? And he never publically admitted it either.

Godchild wrote:
The book was written by a friend of Hitler and presents a sympathetic picture of a guy whom we know to be a sick twisted wretch of a man.  This does not conclusively prove that the book is unreliable, but we would have great reason to question it in light of historical fact.

The review you quoted seems to find it reliable enough. I guess they're blind to the light of that historical fact.

Godchild wrote:
Your logic is totally skewed.  He does not deny it, therefore he must believe it?

How do you know he doesn't hold that doctrine ? Maybe he considers it goes without saying. ALso, anyone can cram for a test on christian doctrine.

Godchild wrote:
Are we going back to deconstructionism now?  Yes, the Bible is interpreted many different ways.  How does that vindicate atheism?

Nope, we're going back to the situation I find myself in : Surrounded by uncountable contradictory views of what faith in christ should mean, all of them claiming to be true.

Godchild wrote:
We have historical record and copies of the Bible.  I do not need Hitler to be alive in order to disprove what he has said.

But he needs to be alive to counter your arguments. And he's not.

Godchild wrote:
You've been arguing that Hitler is a Christian.  Therefore, you have some idea in your mind of what a Christian is, such that you are able to categorize Adolf Hitler as being one.  Either that, or you think that anybody who says they are a Christian must be a Christian because, well, they say so.

When someone expresses faith in jesus christ, no matter how they choose to see him, how exactly can I, or anyone else prove that they don't have that faith ? I've seen people on this site who know their bibles, use solid biblical and historical arguments to point out to certain christians that their interpretation of christianity quite simply doesn't make any sense. Does that shake their faith ? Not even a little. Are they now not christians anymore ? I'd like to see you try to convince them of that.

Godchild wrote:
You are citing sources that I am unable to read.  If you are going to cite something which you present as invalidating my point, then I should be able to read it.  Otherwise, how can you establish that I am wrong on the basis of your source?

This is quite true. And since you won't read that book I mentioned, and I don't even have the money to buy it, so I can check and see if it has the same info, we seem to have hit a bit of a snag.

Let's see if I can find a way around that: Do you happen to have an english copy of Zur Genealogie der Moral III, 26 ? Find the translation for this :

ich mag auch sie nicht, diese neuesten Spekulanten in Idealismus, die Antisemiten, welche heute ihre Augen christlich-arisch-biedermännisch verdrehn und durch einen jede Geduld erschöpfenden Missbrauch des wohlfeilsten Agitationsmittels, der moralischen Attitüde, alle Hornvieh-Elemente des Volkes aufzuregen suchen dass jede Art Schwindel-Geisterei im heutigen Deutschland nicht ohne Erfolg bleibt, hängt mit der nachgerade unableugbaren und bereits handgreiflichen Verödung des deutschen Geistes zusammen, deren Ursache ick in einer allzu ausschliesslichen Ernährung mit Zeitungen, Politik, Bier und Wagnerischen Musik suche, hinzugerechnet, was die Voraussetzung für diese Diät abgibt: einmal die nationale Einklemmung und Eitelkeit, das starke, aber enge Prinzip Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, sodann aber die paralysis agitans der ‘modernen Ideen&rsquoEye-wink.

He wrote that in 1886. I think that's what religious people call "prophetic".

 

 


Godchild (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:There are

Anonymouse wrote:

There are still people who believe those things and call themselves christians. You say they're not ? I don't think that's going to impress them much, or make them change their mind.

There are people who believe in God and call themselves "atheists".  You say they're not?  I don't think that's going to impress them much, or make them change their mind.  "Lack of belief in God" is only your interpretation of the meaning of "atheism". 

Quote:
But we still have the private statements. Wich you choose to dismiss because they were written down by "a friend" .

We've been through this.

The book you've cited is meant to present a sympathetic picture of Hitler and is not reliable.  It is regarded by historians to be a piece of fabricated propaganda.  Furthermore, you have not established that the statements in that book were private. 

Quote:
Sorry, but I most certainly am confronted with different interpretations of what faith in christ should mean.

::eye roll::

One more time. 

I specifically mentioned the admiration for Christ among Muslims and you qualified it by saying that they do not affirm Christ as their lord and savior.  Therefore, you are establishing some metric arbitrarily and will continue doing so until your position starts to make sense.  I do not see that happening anytime soon.

Quote:
BERLIN, May 13. - In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership.

The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members ..."

Now you are just quote-mining (http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/HitlerNazisAtheismSecularism.htm). 

As I've mentioned previously, one of the biggest factors in the establishment of Hitler's authority was the Reich Concordat with the Vatican.  As such, it was important for the Nazis to propagate their agenda as being mandated by the Christian God because the political agenda would not have succeeded unless the Nazis endeared themselves to both the Bavarian Catholics and Prussian Lutherans.  The German Freethinkers League was set up to maintain the separation of church and state and the Nazi party had to act in order to sustain their claim that they were doing God's work.  Further, the chair of the Freethinkers was vehemently opposed to the Nazis and was eventually executed by them.

Quote:
In the first he's talking about his version of christianity,  in the other one (edited by an athiest who apparently had a real problem with catholicism) it's the version of christianity he obviously doesn't agree with.

At this point, you appear to be improvising.

First, you present the quotations in Hitler's table talks as being legitimate, saying that they are consistent with his faith in Christ.  Now, you present them as being edited.  You cannot move the goal posts like that.

Either Hitler said those things, or he did not.  Which is it?

Where in his Table Talks does he qualify that it is a version of Christianity that he disagrees with? 

Quote:
We can agree that he wasn't stupid.

Actually, I do not agree with that at all.

Quote:
Again, no christian doctrine in mein kampf because there doesn't need to be , he praises his version of christianity, you can "sway the public" by telling them things you really believe in as well, he didn't just persecute christians, he denounces the version of christianity he doesn't like, it remains to be proven if he even understands anything about the philosophies he borrows from , and so what ? My closest friend is a christian (well, he says he is. I guess I should have you check him out first before I believe that ), and I'm still an atheist.

You really need to stop.  All you do is consistently ignore facts and find ways to nitpick your way towards a loophole whereby room is still made for Hitler's Christianity.  At this point, you are just trying to win.  This has nothing to do with historical fact or you attempting to learn anything.  If you are going to continue to defend these errors, then I am just wasting my time by continuing this with you.

You are trying to establish a basis for saying that Hitler was a Christian.  If he does not invoke Christian doctrine anywhere, then what is your basis?  If, in his criticisms of Christianity, he does not qualify that he only hates specific versions, then what is your basis for your claim?  Why do you special plead by saying that he simply does not understand Nietzche, yet he simply interprets the Bible differently?  These were not just Hitler's friends, they were his advisors.  If you are a politician and your worldview is goal-oriented, then you are not going to take in advisors who completely disagree with your worldview.

Quote:
Oh ? Know him privately, do you ? And he never publically admitted it either.

You just don't get it. 

I'm trying to show you how your logic is skewed.  Let's *assume* that Obama never privately or publically denies faith in Brahma.  Does that automatically mean that he is a Hindu?

Quote:
The review you quoted seems to find it reliable enough. I guess they're blind to the light of that historical fact.

No, it does not.  You've simply highlighted one part of the review where it says that the book faithfully reproduces the "substance and tone" of Hitler's voice.  That says nothing about Hitler's personal convictions, only that it can give us a good overview on what it was like to hang around with Hitler.  Here is the entire review:


We've grown accustomed to his faces: Hitler the buffoon, Hitler the madman, Hitler the monster. Memoirs of a Confidant introduces us to Hitler the misunderstood idealist whose vision of peace and prosperity was distorted by his gangster lieutenants. The author of this benign nonsense was Otto Wagener, a forgotten Nazi who served as storm trooper chief of staff and party economist until his career was derailed by Rival Hermann Göring. According to the book's editor, Yale History Professor Henry Ashby Turner Jr., Wagener was lucky to escape Göring's blood purge of June 30, 1934. He spent the balance of the decade minding his own business in Saxony. As a major general in World War II, he surrendered the German garrison on Rhodes. Wagener wrote his memoirs while interned by the British. After his release, the general settled in Bavaria, where he puttered in conservative politics until his death in 1971 at age 83.

There is sufficient documentation to authenticate Wagener's life and writing, a comforting thought after the embarrassment of the bogus Hitler diaries and other artifacts fobbed off as pieces of the true Hakenkreuz. The only caution is that Hitler's commentaries and fanciful redundancies on history, race and destiny were reconstructed by Wagener 14 to 17 years after the events he describes. But since Hitler made a lasting impression on millions, it is not farfetched to assume that a disciple who spent hundreds of hours basking in Führerspeak could reproduce the substance and tone of his master's voice.

For this reason alone, the memoirs are a valuable contribution to 20th century demonology. Unfortunately for Wagener, fate continues to be unkind. His book drags him from the mercy of oblivion to play the part of history's fool. The Hitler he intended to re-create is not a tragic hero but a monumental bore. Gaseous generalizations and crackpot theories pour forth Like beer at an Oktoberfest. He thrills to something called the Odic force, "power rays" that flow from healthy bodies. He invokes Einstein's mathematics to justify his own mystical yearnings and "inner vibrations." He attempts to cross socialism with Darwin. He sees Jews as both "economic liberalists" and the organizers of the Soviet Comintern. Then, without a hint of irony or self-doubt, he projects his own faults on intellectuals: "seldom more than a bunch of diseased brains who toss scraps of disconnected and purely synthetically amassed knowledge in dialectically exaggerated and overly subtle formulations back and forth to each other."

Wagener does not agree with everything his leader says, but he cannot get over the way it is said: "His words expressed a wealth of ideas and a view of things and their connections that at times sounded as if they came from another world." And so on, revealing the fatal Teutonic weakness for romantic abstraction.

The Führer never shuts up. He comes across as the century's greatest over-achiever, a man so tormented by fear and disappointment that he rewrites history as a Wagnerian drama to give meaning to his empty life. "How very much I too would like to have a family, children, children! Oh, God, you know how much I love children . . . But I have to deny myself this happiness. I have another bride--Germany! I am married: to the German Volk. " This high-minded sentimentality contrasts grotesquely with private reality. The extent of Hitler's love affair with his niece Geli Raubal may never be clear, but there is enough evidence to indicate that his half sister's 23-year-old daughter was not happy with her Uncle Adolf's attentions. In 1931 Raubal shot herself through the heart. Hitler attended the autopsy, and Wagener notes that from that moment his boss became a vegetarian. The dietary change is understandable, but the obvious question goes unasked: What kind of pervert would willingly watch a coroner cut up someone he loved?

Wagener prefers to probe weaknesses that excuse his own fall from power. He sees Hitler as a poor administrator and a bad judge of human nature. It follows that his Volk hero is surrounded by "simpletons, mindless scum, and flatterers," most notably Himmler, Goebbels, and Göring, who greets Wagener in a red dressing gown and scarlet slippers with turned-up toes. To anyone familiar with office politics, this is a calculated rudeness. Wagener does not seem to get the message. Ever the intellectual snob, he sees Göring as a mental patient rather than a shrewd realist who knows the difference between theatricality and self-delusion.

Wagener seems unable to make this distinction. He mistakes Hitler's flights of quasi-history and pseudo science for higher truth. It is a form of mental alchemy that confuses metaphor with fact. Somewhere in the Führer's murky idea of Europe's gene pool, the Volk await a new golden age. But first he must burn away the dross of Bolshevism and Jewry. The verbiage grows wild and the mind bloats. Wagener's unintended legacy is a lesson on how a haunted medieval mind could effectively debase reason in the name of reason. --By R.Z. Sheppard

Quote:
How do you know he doesn't hold that doctrine ? Maybe he considers it goes without saying. ALso, anyone can cram for a test on christian doctrine.

How do you know that the Queen of England is not a Raelian?  We have not heard her deny it.

Quote:
Nope, we're going back to the situation I find myself in : Surrounded by uncountable contradictory views of what faith in christ should mean, all of them claiming to be true. 

Quote:
But he needs to be alive to counter your arguments. And he's not.

I repeat. 

We have copies of the Bible and we have a record of things actually said by Hitler.  I do not need him to be here in order to prove that the things he said were false.

By the same token, a deceased man could have claimed during his lifetime that 1 + 1 = 3.  Am I in no position to refute him simply because he is not here to defend himself?

Quote:
When someone expresses faith in jesus christ, no matter how they choose to see him, how exactly can I, or anyone else prove that they don't have that faith ?

There you go again, establishing a metric arbitrarily for categorizing a Christian, whilst claiming that you are not doing it.  

You are the one claiming that Hitler is a Christian.  Why is your criteria justified over that of biblical scholars and theologians?

Quote:
This is quite true. And since you won't read that book I mentioned, and I don't even have the money to buy it, so I can check and see if it has the same info, we seem to have hit a bit of a snag.

You don't have the money to buy a book? 

If you cannot cite a readable source, then do not cite it.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Godchild wrote:There are

Godchild wrote:
There are people who believe in God and call themselves "atheists".  You say they're not?  I don't think that's going to impress them much, or make them change their mind.  "Lack of belief in God" is only your interpretation of the meaning of "atheism".

If they believe in god, they're your problem, not mine.

Godchild wrote:
The book you've cited is meant to present a sympathetic picture of Hitler and is not reliable.  It is regarded by historians to be a piece of fabricated propaganda.  Furthermore, you have not established that the statements in that book were private.

Like it said in your review, painting a sympathetic picture may have been his intention, but he failed spectacularly. If that's really the consensus among historians, you must have many of them you can quote on the subject.

Godchild wrote:
::eye roll::One more time. I specifically mentioned the admiration for Christ among Muslims and you qualified it by saying that they do not affirm Christ as their lord and savior.  Therefore, you are establishing some metric arbitrarily and will continue doing so until your position starts to make sense.  I do not see that happening anytime soon.

You expected me to mention each and every aspect in which a muslim considers himself different from a christian ? Eyeroll right back atcha.

Godchild wrote:
Now you are just quote-mining (http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/HitlerNazisAtheismSecularism.htm). 

As I've mentioned previously, one of the biggest factors in the establishment of Hitler's authority was the Reich Concordat with the Vatican.  As such, it was important for the Nazis to propagate their agenda as being mandated by the Christian God because the political agenda would not have succeeded unless the Nazis endeared themselves to both the Bavarian Catholics and Prussian Lutherans.  The German Freethinkers League was set up to maintain the separation of church and state and the Nazi party had to act in order to sustain their claim that they were doing God's work.  Further, the chair of the Freethinkers was vehemently opposed to the Nazis and was eventually executed by them.

Just pointing out that he was "persecuting" everyone who opposed him, regardless of their views on religion.

Godchild wrote:
At this point, you appear to be improvising.First, you present the quotations in Hitler's table talks as being legitimate, saying that they are consistent with his faith in Christ.  Now, you present them as being edited.  You cannot move the goal posts like that.Either Hitler said those things, or he did not.  Which is it?

It was pointed out from the first time you quoted them that they were edited by Bormann. I'm not sure why I should keep repeating that.

Godchild wrote:
Where in his Table Talks does he qualify that it is a version of Christianity that he disagrees with?

Are you getting the impression , from the quotes you posted, that he agrees with it ?

Godchild wrote:
Actually, I do not agree with that at all.

Right. It wouldn't have been stupid to tell the guy he was planning to conquer europe. Okay.

Godchild wrote:
You really need to stop.  All you do is consistently ignore facts and find ways to nitpick your way towards a loophole whereby room is still made for Hitler's Christianity.  At this point, you are just trying to win.  This has nothing to do with historical fact or you attempting to learn anything.  If you are going to continue to defend these errors, then I am just wasting my time by continuing this with you.

I dealt with all the objections you mentioned, you ignore that, call it nitpicking, and then tell me I'm ignoring facts ?

Godchild wrote:
You are trying to establish a basis for saying that Hitler was a Christian.  If he does not invoke Christian doctrine anywhere, then what is your basis?  If, in his criticisms of Christianity, he does not qualify that he only hates specific versions, then what is your basis for your claim?  Why do you special plead by saying that he simply does not understand Nietzche, yet he simply interprets the Bible differently?  These were not just Hitler's friends, they were his advisors.  If you are a politician and your worldview is goal-oriented, then you are not going to take in advisors who completely disagree with your worldview.

My basis for that are the quotes I already posted. I said it remains to be proven that he understood any of it, and the quote I gave you suggests he might not even have read it. And is it really so unlikely that he would have selected his advisers based on their competence rather than their views on religion ?

Godchild wrote:
You just don't get it. I'm trying to show you how your logic is skewed.  Let's *assume* that Obama never privately or publically denies faith in Brahma.  Does that automatically mean that he is a Hindu?

But there are quotes where hitler expresses his faith.

Godchild wrote:
No, it does not.  You've simply highlighted one part of the review where it says that the book faithfully reproduces the "substance and tone" of Hitler's voice.  That says nothing about Hitler's personal convictions, only that it can give us a good overview on what it was like to hang around with Hitler.  Here is the entire review:

It says there's sufficient documentation to authenticate Wagener's writing, and that even though it was reonstructed 14 to 17 years later, it's not farfetched to assume he could reproduce the "substance and tone" of hitler. Nowhere does it say the quotes are fabricated.

Godchild wrote:
How do you know that the Queen of England is not a Raelian?  We have not heard her deny it.

If she says she is, but never mentions the doctrine where you can hear it, or leaves behind any written account of her mentioning the doctrine, is it then proven that she wasn't ?

Godchild wrote:
I repeat.  We have copies of the Bible and we have a record of things actually said by Hitler.  I do not need him to be here in order to prove that the things he said were false.

How exactly are you going to prove that he didn't have faith in what he thought christ stood for ?

Godchild wrote:
By the same token, a deceased man could have claimed during his lifetime that 1 + 1 = 3.  Am I in no position to refute him simply because he is not here to defend himself?

You're comparing math with faith now ?

Godchild wrote:
There you go again, establishing a metric arbitrarily for categorizing a Christian, whilst claiming that you are not doing it. 

No, I asked you a question. You didn't answer it.

Godchild wrote:
You are the one claiming that Hitler is a Christian.  Why is your criteria justified over that of biblical scholars and theologians?

Hitler's the one claiming he's a christian. Biblical scholars and theologians would have easily adapted their criteria if he'd won the war.

Godchild wrote:
You don't have the money to buy a book?

Nope. Bought tickets for Crowded House and three other concerts. I'm broke untill my after my summer job in august. Why do you think I'm looking for entertainment here ?

Godchild wrote:
If you cannot cite a readable source, then do not cite it.

How hard can it be to find a translation of Zur Genealogie der Moral quote I gave you ? I'm not your google slave. Do it yourself.

As for "The German Churches Under Hitler", I don't see why that shouldn't be readable.

 


Godchild (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Summer job?  Crowded

Summer job?  Crowded House?  Can't afford a book?

Sorry, I'm not interested in debating a prepubescent who has no genuine interest in learning.

Have fun wallowing in your self-imposed ignorance, but just do us all a favor and punch your daddy in the mouth.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Godchild wrote:Summer job? 

Godchild wrote:

Summer job?  Crowded House?  Can't afford a book?

Sorry, I'm not interested in debating a prepubescent who has no genuine interest in learning.

Have fun wallowing in your self-imposed ignorance, but just do us all a favor and punch your daddy in the mouth.

I know you have no interest in debating, because you're not doing it. What you did here is called an ad hominem, btw. So you're lucky this isn't a game, like you said, or you would have lost now.

Btw, you accusing me of trying to make up an "arbitrary metric" for chrisitianity makes no sense for the following simple reason that you don't seem to want to understand  : I get all my ideas about what christians are from what christians tell me.

I don't think I'll punch my daddy in the mouth. He punches back.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15748
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:I own a Nazi belt

Loc wrote:

I own a Nazi belt buckle like the one above given to me by my uncle..the significance of the inscription didn't sink in until a few years ago

 

 

You know what is scary about owning that, people will take it out of context and falsely accuse you of being a fan of Hitler. Yet soldiers in WW2 and both Gulf wars took mementos from the defeated home with them. I think everyone should read Mine Kompf(sp) so that humanity can have insight to the mind of a madman.

I have a rising sun flag I bought in Japan, that doesn't mean I support the fascism the Japanese had at the time of WW2.

Owning a part of dark history serves as a reminder of what humans should not do to each other.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Without the person here and

Without the person here and alive to be questioned, you cannot prove anything much about his real thoughts and feelings on such personally subjective issues, although we can infer a number of likely possibilities.

Any claims he made during his lifetime which were clearly and provably incorrect, from explicit errors such as '1 + 1 = 3', to claims about what he actions he may have actually taken, are in a quite different category from facts about his ideas and motivations and intentions, which are the kind of thing we can only speculate about. So the comparison to possible counter-factual is totally fallacious, since even such claims by themselves would not 'prove' anything about his motivation for making such claims.

If the 'godchild' we are responding to here is the same person who started the  "Eloise and Bob Spence" thread, we seem to be dealing with a strange, disturbed individual. I am wondering whether they are seriously behind the positions they are putting forth in this and other threads.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Godchild wrote:Summer job? 

Godchild wrote:

Summer job?  Crowded House?  Can't afford a book?

Sorry, I'm not interested in debating a prepubescent who has no genuine interest in learning.

Have fun wallowing in your self-imposed ignorance, but just do us all a favor and punch your daddy in the mouth.

Lol. He gave up and started throwing insults again, like he did with Eloise and Bobspence.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:  Owning a

Brian37 wrote:

 

 Owning a part of dark history serves as a reminder of what humans should not do to each other.

    That's why after I became an atheist I still kept my Bible.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Maybe Hitler should have

  Maybe Hitler should have gone with this uber belt buckle instead.  It's almost as large as a Roman shield and there's no way other people couldn't notice it.

  

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

 Owning a part of dark history serves as a reminder of what humans should not do to each other.

    That's why after I became an atheist I still kept my Bible.

I have two childrens bibles I received around 30 years ago, one is a hardback and the other is the fancy leather with a zipper model 

Strangely enough the only difference in a kjv childrens version and the regular kjv seems to be that one has pictures.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
robj101

robj101 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

 Owning a part of dark history serves as a reminder of what humans should not do to each other.

    That's why after I became an atheist I still kept my Bible.

I have two childrens bibles I received around 30 years ago, one is a hardback and the other is the fancy leather with a zipper model 

Strangely enough the only difference in a kjv childrens version and the regular kjv seems to be that one has pictures.

 

Well, you really truly want most little children to believe god/s/dess will send bears to eat them if they misbehave.  Really.  You don't want to edit that out.  So you might as well leave in the rest of the murdering and raping as well.  After all, it is god/s/dess' word and they should study it carefully.  Especially the part about the bears. 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:robj101

cj wrote:

robj101 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

 

 Owning a part of dark history serves as a reminder of what humans should not do to each other.

    That's why after I became an atheist I still kept my Bible.

I have two childrens bibles I received around 30 years ago, one is a hardback and the other is the fancy leather with a zipper model 

Strangely enough the only difference in a kjv childrens version and the regular kjv seems to be that one has pictures.

 

Well, you really truly want most little children to believe god/s/dess will send bears to eat them if they misbehave.  Really.  You don't want to edit that out.  So you might as well leave in the rest of the murdering and raping as well.  After all, it is god/s/dess' word and they should study it carefully.  Especially the part about the bears. 

Whilst playing Everquest back in the day /cough, I distinctly remember being more afraid of the bears a friend and I encountered in the eastern commonlands. I think my friend said something over "roger wilco" (yea the primitive version of teamspeak/ventrilo) "oh shit, theres bears here!"

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
It's Frederick the Great's

It's Frederick the Great's belt buckle anyway.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:It's

totus_tuus wrote:

It's Frederick the Great's belt buckle anyway.

Even with the swastika? Was this incredible foresight?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Heinrich Himmler (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Actually SS belts were

Actually SS belts were inscribed Meine Ehre Heist Treue (my honor means loyalty)  the Gott Mit Uns were Wehrmacht belts. Just to clear that up.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1970
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:...many

OrdinaryClay wrote:

...many lie to themselves in order to self justify their anti Christian bigotries. 

Ouch.

You say being utterly contemptuous of savage, blood thirsty, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, sexually dysfunctional, bipolar, sadistic, homicidal sociopaths, like it's a bad thing...

Fuck you, and the god you rode in on, I say...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
let's look at actions.Hitler

let's look at actions.

Hitler wanted a lot of dead Jews to make sure that only his definition of "Christian" lived.

Christians today want a lot of dead Jews so that their definition of "Christian " lives.

Both of them believed (and believe) they were making Jesus happy.

Was Hitler a Christian or are Christians Hitlerites?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin