Hitler: Christian or Pagan?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-02-27 05:15pm

LongVin wrote:Well next time they show that documentary I'll make sure to make a post to tell everyone to watch it.

What a retard. What word in our demands is too complex for you, kid?

LongVin · Post by **LongVin** » 2006-02-27 06:05pm

SirNitram wrote:
LongVin wrote:Well next time they show that documentary I'll make sure to make a post to tell everyone to watch it.
What a retard. What word in our demands is too complex for you, kid?

I can hardly post evidence to something I do not currently have in my possession and even if I did have the DvD I wouldn't have a written transcript that I can post online.

But if you want when I have the time I'll post every bibliographical reference in the book on the forum to cite evidence that everything was researched.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2006-02-27 06:05pm

LongVin wrote:I am taking sections from the book primarily beginning and ends of the chapters since they are the easiest to find. Most of the meat is contained within the center of the chapters but I am not going to reread whole chapters looking for a single quote.

Alright, nublet, here's the rub:

Hitler's public discourse is so overwhelmingly Christian that not even the most ardent of apologists can claim that it was anything other than Christian.

In order to discount these public discourses, apologists like the ones you've been citing have frequently tried to differentiate between Hitler's private and his public beliefs, but have in general failed to demonstrate that such a difference existed.

When someone asks you to present evidence, they do not mean a summarized form of someone else's claims. They want the original facts used to create a coherent hypothesis (ie. they wish to be able to follow the logic their opponent is using). Showing that Hitler's private retreat had a Christian cross, and that his paintings before he had any political aspirations were Christian in nature is evidence. For your camp, something written in a diary like, "I really don't believe any of this stupid Christian tripe--I'm just using it to further my political goals" would be good. But you can't actually give any such evidence because none of what you need exists. Instead, you must state conclusions as if they were facts, and "rebut" evidence of Hitler's Christianity by stating that it was all public, even when it clearly wasn't (ie. his private retreat had a cross; his private paintings; his writings in Mein Kampf).

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-02-27 06:19pm

LongVin wrote:I can hardly post evidence to something I do not currently have in my possession and even if I did have the DvD I wouldn't have a written transcript that I can post online.

It's so amusing when they admit they were breaking the rules of the forum.

But if you want when I have the time I'll post every bibliographical reference in the book on the forum to cite evidence that everything was researched.

No one gives a shit about the biblography, you dumb-shit apologist. We want to know what actions demonstrate the claim you are making. Citing ten million books wouldn't do that.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2006-02-27 06:23pm

LongVin wrote:But if you want when I have the time I'll post every bibliographical reference in the book on the forum to cite evidence that everything was researched.

Are you seriously too stupid to understand that the bibliography is irrelevant until such a time as you actually post the facts that you are trying to establish? No one cares about how many books you can cite in a text--we care about why a text is citing those sources. What facts do those sources provide that allows us to generate a coherent hypothesis? Do they show that Hitler wrote extensively, in private, about his disbelief in Christianity? Do they show that Hitler was a completely different person in private, with totally different beliefs, than the public front he put on? What facts do these alleged references establish, and how do these facts allow us to move from "Hitler was publically, clearly a Christian" to "Although Hitler practiced Christianity in public, he was privately not a Christian." An opinion is not a fact, and a citation is not a fact. A fact is something like, "Even in his private retreat, Hitler had a cross at which to pray," or "Even before he harbored political aspirations, Hitler's artwork reveals an ideology steeped in Christian doctrine."

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-02-27 06:47pm

The claim that Mein Kampf was a political tool for manipulating people and not necessarily reflecting Hitler beliefs seems very odd to me. He wrote Mein Kampf while in prison after he was arrested in 1923 for leading 2000 National Socialist Brownshirts to stage a coup in Bavaria and failed. He was supposed to be in prison for five years, but was released after only nine months.

At that point, he had very little political power at all to defend. In fact, the NAZI party wouldn't even become significant in German politics for another six decades. He wasn't even a German citizen at the time. Frankly, Hitler had nothing but his beliefs.

He was dirt poor, in shitty health (I don't think his vision ever quite recovered from being partially exposed to poison gas), and the leader of a political party that had very little sway in politics. With the way things were going in Germany in the 20s, he could have easily died in prison before being released or if things had gone slightly different he'd go back to sleeping on park benchs and leeching off the dole in Austria. Why would he try buttering up anyone at that point?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-02-27 06:49pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:He wrote Mein Kampf while in prison after he was arrested in 1923 for leading 2000 National Socialist Brownshirts to stage a coup in Bavaria and failed.

In fact, the NAZI party wouldn't even become significant in German politics for another six decades. He wasn't even a German citizen at the time. Frankly, Hitler had nothing but his beliefs.

The Nazi party rose to prominence in the 1980's?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2006-02-27 06:51pm

Gregory Paul had a series of articles in Free Inquiry about Hitler being a Christian. The alleged "attacks" on Christianity almost all fell into three categories:

1) those Christians who opposed him

2) efforts to appeal to Catholics in Austria and Bavaria on one hand, and Protestants elsewhere in the Reich on the other

3) misquotes, misunderstanding actual quotes, and made up quotes with no evidence to back them up

Hitler's only real beef with Christianity was that different factions divided the Reich. He wanted a national church with the head of state as head of the church: Hitler. He also wanted to make sure church taxes and tithes, which the German government collected and sent to Rome, stayed in Germany. By LongVin's logic, none of the English monarchs or heads of state from Henry VIII to the present was a Christian.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-02-27 06:54pm

SirNitram wrote:The Nazi party rose to prominence in the 1980's?

Teufel! Years, six years.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2006-02-27 06:57pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:He was dirt poor, in shitty health (I don't think his vision ever quite recovered from being partially exposed to poison gas), and the leader of a political party that had very little sway in politics. With the way things were going in Germany in the 20s, he could have easily died in prison before being released or if things had gone slightly different he'd go back to sleeping on park benchs and leeching off the dole in Austria. Why would he try buttering up anyone at that point?

His shitty health was one of the reasons he was so hell bent on starting a second war and why he was always ordering this attack or that invasion long before the armed forces were ready. There was a documentary on Discovery where doctors went through his medical records and watched contemporary films of Hitler. Their conclusion? He was dying of Parkinson's and knew it by late 1937/ early 1938 at the latest. He wanted the war to start and get fully underway because he was worried he wouldn't live long enough to see it.

CarsonPalmer · Post by **CarsonPalmer** » 2006-02-27 07:21pm

Hitler was a Catholic, definitely, and Catholics can be bad too, but using Martin Luther as an example of Catholic Anti-Semitism is not a good idea, considering he was the first to break from the Catholic Church. Maybe Spain would be a better example.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-02-27 07:35pm

LongVin wrote:I can hardly post evidence to something I do not currently have in my possession and even if I did have the DvD I wouldn't have a written transcript that I can post online.

If you don't have evidence, then why are you appealing to it?

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2006-02-27 07:41pm

Damn just like I predicted on page one he'd call Mein Kampf a political tool and bullshit about how it doesn't count cause 'e sez so

.

Brian

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-27 07:54pm

CarsonPalmer wrote:Hitler was a Catholic, definitely, and Catholics can be bad too, but using Martin Luther as an example of Catholic Anti-Semitism is not a good idea, considering he was the first to break from the Catholic Church. Maybe Spain would be a better example.

Who used such an example and where?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-02-27 07:58pm

wolveraptor wrote:
CarsonPalmer wrote:Hitler was a Catholic, definitely, and Catholics can be bad too, but using Martin Luther as an example of Catholic Anti-Semitism is not a good idea, considering he was the first to break from the Catholic Church. Maybe Spain would be a better example.
Who used such an example and where?

Stas Bush did, on the top of the thread's third page.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-27 09:09pm

He still mentions that Luther was a Protestant. That he was one doesn't change the fact that Hitler stole ideas from him. Hitler's Christianity wasn't pure Catholicism - he wanted the Pope to be himself, and he must've disagreed with some finer details of doctrine.

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2006-02-27 09:58pm

I think it's odd that only Catholics try to deny that Hitler was catholic. Protestants claim Hitler was Catholic, but then Catholics are not christian. Ergo, I shall assume that Hitler was Catholic, and Catholicism is christian, because everyone seems to only be denying things when it might make them look bad.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-02-27 10:12pm

defanatic wrote:I think it's odd that only Catholics try to deny that Hitler was catholic. Protestants claim Hitler was Catholic, but then Catholics are not christian. Ergo, I shall assume that Hitler was Catholic, and Catholicism is christian, because everyone seems to only be denying things when it might make them look bad.

It's even worse, since they like to pin him on pegans. As if the pegans are really around such as the mere mention of 'pegan' implies large bands of Celts still living close to gods people or some such nonsense.

They, christians, gotta believe their little belief system is the best, so any one that brings that image down and they bust out the 'no true scotsman' bullshit and try to pin it on some other construct they percieve as 'the enemy'.

I'm shocked they haven't tried to pin the evil deeds of Hitler on the Muslims yet. It's as ridiculous as trying to force it to the 'pegans'.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-02-27 11:06pm

Remember, to Joe Q. Christian, the world is divided into Christians and Pagans. It doesn't matter to him whether the Pagans are different or the same; they're still Pagan. It's still misuse of the term; however, when a conservative Christian says "Pagan", he really means "Not Christian", not "a follower of a pantheistic tribal religion".

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-02-27 11:07pm

Hitler was a Catholic, definitely, and Catholics can be bad too, but using Martin Luther as an example of Catholic Anti-Semitism is not a good idea, considering he was the first to break from the Catholic Church. Maybe Spain would be a better example.

WTF? Luther was a Protestant. Hitler sought to unite the Protestant Churches in Germany into a single church, and Mueller was made it's bishop, IIRC.
Hitler wasn't like, entirely Catholic.
His (and the Nazi Party's) brand was Positive Christianity and all-Reich Church unification.

So that's not "Catholics can doo bad thing too", it's in the "Christian theologists in general are sometimes real assholes" park.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-02-27 11:09pm

Surlethe wrote:Remember, to Joe Q. Christian, the world is divided into Christians and Pagans. It doesn't matter to him whether the Pagans are different or the same; they're still Pagan. It's still misuse of the term; however, when a conservative Christian says "Pagan", he really means "Not Christian", not "a follower of a pantheistic tribal religion".

I know and it irritates the shit out of me. Though, I do like the look on their faces when you run down the list off all the 'pagan' shit they stole from the evil do-ers for their own religion.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-02-27 11:15pm

Knife wrote:I know and it irritates the shit out of me. Though, I do like the look on their faces when you run down the list off all the 'pagan' shit they stole from the evil do-ers for their own religion.

I was talking once with a family friend; he started to try to talk me into going on a mission trip in the future; I, of course, noted that was contingent upon my remaining Christian, and he looked at me for a second like I was mad, and said, "Well, you could become pagan". I did a double-take before I remembered that was modus operandi for his social circle.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-02-27 11:21pm

Surlethe wrote:
Knife wrote:I know and it irritates the shit out of me. Though, I do like the look on their faces when you run down the list off all the 'pagan' shit they stole from the evil do-ers for their own religion.
I was talking once with a family friend; he started to try to talk me into going on a mission trip in the future; I, of course, noted that was contingent upon my remaining Christian, and he looked at me for a second like I was mad, and said, "Well, you could become pagan". I did a double-take before I remembered that was modus operandi for his social circle.

It's the presumption. You're an American/English/European. You must be a christian. A part of the tribe, basically.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-27 11:33pm

I'm sure no one looks at a bunch of filthy Jews or Muslims and says, "Hey you pagans!"And yes, I am, in fact kidding. What a shocker. It's a term reserved exclusively for non-Abrahamic religions, which are overbearingly pantheistic.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-27 11:34pm

Sorry, that's polytheistic, not pantheistic.