Help in "Hitler wasn't a Christian" argument

[Yogi]

Nazism was the antithesis of universal. It based everything on the supposed superiority of Germans, and drew its moral authority not from any concept of God, but from its position as the German state. In effect, the state was deified, and as such the church posed a threat. The solution was to marginalize the church. All protestant churches were merged into an official church, and ministers that objected, such as Martin Niemoller, wound up in Dachau. This church was subservient to the state. Thus, the Nazis didn’t try and use Christian pretenses. They actively worked to push the church into the corner, so that it would not be able to compete with them for moral authority.

Any ideas on how to counter this?

[Joe]

It is true that Hitler may not have been a Christian in the tradition that we think of Christianity; apparently, while certainly not an atheist, he had his own private ideas about Jesus Christ (not negative, just different from traditional Christianity). In any case, both he and his party were publically quite Christian, as a quick reading of Nazi literature will show you. They can argue that for the part of Hitler it was nothing more than lip service, but that doesn't change the fact that it was some extremely enthusastic, spirited lip service.

Ask him for evidence of how Hitler marginalized the power of the Churches, point out the fairly favorable relationship he had with the Vatican, and show him some quotes from Hitler about Christianity (Mike's essay has some good ones).

[Frank Hipper]

Christian Hitler

Out of the monster's mouth.

[Yogi]

Thanks Mr. Hipper. I was already using Mr. Wong's essays, but it never hurts to get extra ammo, especially against a specific argument like that.

[Wicked Pilot]

This is my arguement. I've seen these in person at the D-Day museum in New Orleans.

[Enforcer Talen]

deism christianity does not make.

-clicks links-

[Joe]

Is "arguement" an alternate spelling of "argument?"

[Ted C]

Nazism was the antithesis of universal. It based everything on the supposed superiority of Germans, and drew its moral authority not from any concept of God, but from its position as the German state. In effect, the state was deified, and as such the church posed a threat. The solution was to marginalize the church. All protestant churches were merged into an official church, and ministers that objected, such as Martin Niemoller, wound up in Dachau. This church was subservient to the state. Thus, the Nazis didn’t try and use Christian pretenses. They actively worked to push the church into the corner, so that it would not be able to compete with them for moral authority.

The fact that Hitler and the Nazis wanted to control the church does not mean that they were not Christians. There are plenty of people of various Christian denominations today who think they know best how to worship God, and church-vs-state maneuvering is well-established historical aspect of European politics.

It's clear that Hitler believed in both God and Christ as his savior, so Hitler was obviously a Christian by the most basic definition. His particular interpretation of Christianity was horribly twisted, but he was definitely a Christian.

[Darth Wong]

Why does that "argument" require refuting at all? It presents no evidence whatsoever, it makes no attempt to explain all of the contradictory evidence away, it doesn't even bother to present the usual discredited, fraudulent Hitler quotes from Bormann and Rauschning. All it does is make a series of claims. In essence, it just says "No he was NOT a Christian, because I say so" in a long-winded way.

[HemlockGrey]

What does it matter if Hitler was Christian? He handily disregarded Christ's teachings, so I don't think he's much a baseline comparison.

[Darth Wong]

What does it matter if Hitler was Christian? He handily disregarded Christ's teachings, so I don't think he's much a baseline comparison.

By that token, the Catholic church was not Christian until well after WW2, and maybe not even now, since many of their policies are very hurtful to many people. And the Baptists aren't Christian either, since their policies are extremely exclusionary and intolerant.

Stop redefining "Christian". If someone believes Jesus was the Son of God, then he's a Christian. The way he chooses to interpret the Bible is a personal choice which does not affect his Christian faith or lack thereof. This kind of thinking (that one's personal interpretation is the only possible one, therefore all others are heretical) is PRECISELY the same thing that's caused so many inter-denominational conflicts in the past.

[HemlockGrey]

Stop redefining "Christian". If someone believes Jesus was the Son of God, then he's a Christian. The way he chooses to interpret the Bible is a personal choice which does not affect his Christian faith or lack thereof. This kind of thinking (that one's personal interpretation is the only possible one, therefore all others are heretical) is PRECISELY the same thing that's caused so many inter-denominational conflicts in the past.

I will reiterate: Since he did not follow Christ's teachings, he is obviously not a very good baseline comparison, so why does it matter?

[Darth Wong]

Stop redefining "Christian". If someone believes Jesus was the Son of God, then he's a Christian. The way he chooses to interpret the Bible is a personal choice which does not affect his Christian faith or lack thereof. This kind of thinking (that one's personal interpretation is the only possible one, therefore all others are heretical) is PRECISELY the same thing that's caused so many inter-denominational conflicts in the past.

I will reiterate: Since he did not follow Christ's teachings, he is obviously not a very good baseline comparison, so why does it matter?

Since you were obviously too fucking stupid to understand my point the first time around, I will repeat it slowly. They do not follow YOUR INTERPRETATION of Christ's teachings. Note the capitalized section. Think about it.

[HemlockGrey]

Since you were obviously too fucking stupid to understand my point the first time around, I will repeat it slowly. They do not follow YOUR INTERPRETATION of Christ's teachings. Note the capitalized section. Think about it.

What the hell are going on about? I didn't say he wasn't a Christian, I said what's the fucking point? Why does it matter whether he was or not? His views are not the views of the majority, so you can't use him as a baseline.

[Darth Wong]

Since you were obviously too fucking stupid to understand my point the first time around, I will repeat it slowly. They do not follow YOUR INTERPRETATION of Christ's teachings. Note the capitalized section. Think about it.

What the hell are going on about? I didn't say he wasn't a Christian, I said what's the fucking point? Why does it matter whether he was or not?

You said he was not following Christ's teachings, which is one of the standard arguments used to prove that he was not indicative of Christians. However, HISTORICALLY, his views are hardly exceptional.

His views are not the views of the majority, so you can't use him as a baseline.

His stated views were the views of the majority at the time and throughout much of Catholic history.

[HemlockGrey]

His stated views were the views of the majority at the time and throughout much of Catholic history.

But Catholicism is hardly the only sect of Christianty, and his views are certainly in the minority now.

[Darth Wong]

His stated views were the views of the majority at the time and throughout much of Catholic history.

But Catholicism is hardly the only sect of Christianty, and his views are certainly in the minority now.

Irrelevant. His stated views were not in the minority at the time, hence he is NOT a non-Christian, nor is he grossly inconsistent with Christian history or Christian attitudes at the time. Honestly, all of the various crimes committed against the Jewish people were greeted with a collective yawn by the world at large until they discovered just how inhumane the concentration camps were. Mind you, since people would blanche even if ANIMALS were treated that way, this hardly exonerates the world community at the time.

[HemlockGrey]

Irrelevant. His stated views were not in the minority at the time, hence he is NOT a non-Christian, nor is he grossly inconsistent with Christian history or Christian attitudes at the time. Honestly, all of the various crimes committed against the Jewish people were greeted with a collective yawn by the world at large until they discovered just how inhumane the concentration camps were. Mind you, since people would blanche even if ANIMALS were treated that way, this hardly exonerates the world community at the time.

I never said he was't a Christian! I said that his views do not dovetail with the Christian majority now, so why does it matter whether or not was a Christian?

[Darth Wong]

I never said he was't a Christian! I said that his views do not dovetail with the Christian majority now, so why does it matter whether or not was a Christian?

That is not what you said. You said that he was not to be used as a "baseline" and claimed he was not following Christ's teachings in an absolute sense, rather than talking about popular attitude cross-comparisons across different eras. But feel free to continue backpedaling.

[HemlockGrey]

That is not what you said. You said that he was not to be used as a "baseline" and claimed he was not following Christ's teachings in an absolute sense, rather than talking about popular attitude cross-comparisons across different eras. But feel free to continue backpedaling.

What does it matter if Hitler was Christian? He handily disregarded Christ's teachings, so I don't think he's much a baseline comparison.

I clearly asked 'why does it matter'? He disregarded Christ's teachings, unlike the majority now, so he cannot be used as a baseline to compare against other Christians, which is the only possible reason I can think of for this sort of debate. I am sorry if my initial statement was unclear.

[Darth Wong]

I clearly asked 'why does it matter'? He disregarded Christ's teachings,

A statement which, for the THIRD FUCKING TIME, is based on your egotistical assumption that your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of a subjective source is somehow universal and absolute. What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand?

unlike the majority now, so he cannot be used as a baseline to compare against other Christians, which is the only possible reason I can think of for this sort of debate. I am sorry if my initial statement was unclear.

If you wanted to specifically compare him to modern-day popular attitudes instead of Christians as a whole throughout history, you should have said so. And there is still no excuse for your dogged insistence that your own personal interpretation of "Christ's teachings" is the ONLY POSSIBLE ONE.

[HemlockGrey]

A statement which, for the THIRD FUCKING TIME, is based on your egotistical assumption that your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of a subjective source is somehow universal and absolute. What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand?

Christ said 'If your enemy strikes your cheek, turn and give him your other cheek to strike'. Theologians can debate the means and method of salvation, but I think it's pretty damn absolute that this teaching does not mean "Go forth and slaughter everyone ruthlessly if they do you harm." Since Hitler went forth and slaughtered everyone ruthlessly for the harm of Versailles, I think we can safely say he disregarded this teaching.

[Darth Wong]

A statement which, for the THIRD FUCKING TIME, is based on your egotistical assumption that your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of a subjective source is somehow universal and absolute. What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand?

Christ said 'If your enemy strikes your cheek, turn and give him your other cheek to strike'. Theologians can debate the means and method of salvation, but I think it's pretty damn absolute that this teaching does not mean "Go forth and slaughter everyone ruthlessly if they do you harm."

Christ also said that not one word will be removed from the old law, dumb-ass. This means you're still supposed to execute homosexuals, for example. He also praised the Old Testament God, who was a ruthless genocidal butcher and terrorist.

Since Hitler went forth and slaughtered everyone ruthlessly for the harm of Versailles, I think we can safely say he disregarded this teaching.

He was just following the spirit of the Old Testament, from which not one word will be removed according to Jesus.

PS. You are obviously ignorant of Hitler's belief system. He was a selective creationist who believed that only aryans were true humans, created directly by God. He believed that all OTHER races were evolved from apes, and were thus "sub-human" (they used this term routinely in their propaganda), hence they did not qualify as "people" for the purpose of applying Biblical law and had no rights or reasonable expectation of humane treatment.

[HemlockGrey]

Christ also said that not one word will be removed from the old law, dumb-ass. This means you're still supposed to execute homosexuals, for example. He also praised the Old Testament God, who was a ruthless genocidal butcher and terrorist.

Could you provide a passage? I am not familiar with this.

[Darth Wong]

Christ also said that not one word will be removed from the old law, dumb-ass. This means you're still supposed to execute homosexuals, for example. He also praised the Old Testament God, who was a ruthless genocidal butcher and terrorist.

Could you provide a passage? I am not familiar with this.

Matthew 5:17-18 (NIV):

17. Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.