Anonymouse wrote:

Godchild wrote:

http://www.bedfordgaol.com/walkersite.html

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. 

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.

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

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. 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.

Have you read it?

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.

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 ?

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

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 ?

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.

(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)."

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?

Should mention what?

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.

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.

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?

Nevermind.  This statement answers the previous question.

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.

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.

*Sigh*

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

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

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. 

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

::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.

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.

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?

Actually, I do not agree with that at all.

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.

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?

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:

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

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?

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?

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

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

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.

 

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

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.

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. 

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

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