Christianity and Hitler

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think this works here. What Hitler did, to use a terminology from the philosophy of science, was to reject much of the core of this religion whilst keeping some, few, of the auxiliary assumptions. Very little to nothing in common with traditional Christianity.

Which of the Articles of Faith did he reject?
I mean, those ten statements ARE the core of 'traditional Christainity,' nu? Established at the behest of Constantine, after he asked, "What does it mean to be a Christain?"

Anything that's not part of that core would just be one of the differences between various sects.

So, was Hitler's religion monotheist?
Did he reject Jesus? Reject the holy spirit?
Did he believe in the Virgin Birth? The crucifixion? Pontius Pilate?
Death, three day resurrection, flying up to Heaven?

What is it you consider the 'core' of 'traditional Christainity' and how can you show that he rejected it?

 

[Atheos]

I don't think this works here. What Hitler did, to use a terminology from the philosophy of science, was to reject much of the core of this religion whilst keeping some, few, of the auxiliary assumptions. Very little to nothing in common with traditional Christianity.

Doesn't matter. The principle is the same. The core doctrine of Christianity is not the silly story of a hero god who suffered to save others. The core doctrine is that thinking for yourself is bad. Let god (through me) tell you how to think and what to do. It doesn't matter whether it's Hitler using this principle to encourage his foot soldiers with "Got mit uns," Torquemada rationalizing his actions as the will of god or those who instigated the crusades.

Wishful-thinking Christians have a long history of revising history to paint a more favorable picture of their ways. Hitler was not an atheist and he was self-identified with Christianity whether Christians today want to accept it or not.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't think this works here. What Hitler did, to use a terminology from the philosophy of science, was to reject much of the core of this religion whilst keeping some, few, of the auxiliary assumptions. Very little to nothing in common with traditional Christianity.

The core of Christianity is acceptance of Jesus as divine. After that, it is pretty much a free for all with different sects holding different ideas as Truth. Christianity, in general, certainly doesn't have a history of tolerance when in a position of power.

 

[metacristi]

Committed in the name of Christianity do not also imply that the theological support was really there, strong I mean (the Crusades for example begin from a flawed theology, anyways no one used the, paraphrased, 'I have not come to bring peace' verses). Violence I'm afraid is not one of the defining features of Christianity if reason is pushed to its logical end (although I do not deny that Christianity has enough problematic parts). Even the 'Christian' Hitler realized that and wanted something more on the lines islam.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Committed in the name of Christianity do not also imply that the theological support was really there, strong I mean (the Crusades for example begin from a flawed theology, anyways no noe used the, paraphrased, 'I have not come to bring peace' verses); violence I'm afraid is not one of the defining features of Christianity if reason is pushed to its logical end (although I do not deny that Christianity has enough problematic parts). Even the 'Christian' Hitler realized that and wanted something more on the lines islam.

I'm missing the point you're making. Are you saying that both the Nazis and the Crusades weren't real Christianity? What do you feel are the core principles of Christianity and why?

 

[metacristi]

I don't think this works here. What Hitler did, to use a terminology from the philosophy of science, was to reject much of the core of this religion whilst keeping some, few, of the auxiliary assumptions. Very little to nothing in common with traditional Christianity.

The core of Christianity is acceptance of Jesus as divine. After that, it is pretty much a free for all with different sects holding different ideas as Truth. Christianity, in general, certainly doesn't have a history of tolerance when in a position of power.

Orthodox / traditional Christianity definitely implies more as the core (the Jewish Law is not in this core by the way). Positive Christianity goes rather on the line of Marcion but even here one can see fundamental differences. But I do not really understand what's the point of all these, to defend the, lost, cause that Hitler was a traditional Christian? Upon this logic then I am a Christian too (for I find for example most of the 10 commandments acceptable in the light of modern values) something which I know I am not. Semantics do not change the reality that Hitler had little in common with the established Church, traditional Christianity in general.

 

[dystopian]

Committed in the name of Christianity do not also imply that the theological support was really there, strong I mean (the Crusades for example begin from a flawed theology, anyways no one used the, paraphrased, 'I have not come to bring peace' verses). Violence I'm afraid is not one of the defining features of Christianity if reason is pushed to its logical end (although I do not deny that Christianity has enough problematic parts). Even the 'Christian' Hitler realized that and wanted something more on the lines islam.

It doesn't matter whether or not the theological support was or was not there. That is irrelevant. When a christian commits acts of evil, we can say that *either* it was christianity that drove him to it (whether or not his interpretations of the theology are accurate does not change this, and insisting to the contrary is committing to the no true scotsman fallacy); Or instead being a christian *failed* to prevent him from committing evil. So at worst, Christianity is a cause of evil, and at best it fails it fails to prevent it (contrary to the often heard claim that being a christian makes one a better person, statistics to the contrary notwithstanding).

 

[skepticalbip]

The core of Christianity is acceptance of Jesus as divine. After that, it is pretty much a free for all with different sects holding different ideas as Truth. Christianity, in general, certainly doesn't have a history of tolerance when in a position of power.

Orthodox / traditional Christianity definitely implies more as the core (the Jewish Law is not in this core by the way). Positive Christianity goes rather on the line of Marcion but even here one can see fundamental differences. But I do not really understand what's the point of all these, to defend the, lost, cause that Hitler was a traditional Christian? Upon this logic then I am a Christian too (for I find for example most of the 10 commandments acceptable in the light of modern values) something which I know I am not. Semantics do not change the reality that Hitler had little in common with the established Church, traditional Christianity in general.

The 10 commandments does not make someone a Christian. The first four are just to only worship the Abrahamic god. Judaism and Islam follow these. The last six are simple societal rules followed by any religion and even humanists and atheists or, indeed, any stable society even if they had never heard of Christianity or the Bible.

 

[metacristi]

Committed in the name of Christianity do not also imply that the theological support was really there, strong I mean (the Crusades for example begin from a flawed theology, anyways no noe used the, paraphrased, 'I have not come to bring peace' verses); violence I'm afraid is not one of the defining features of Christianity if reason is pushed to its logical end (although I do not deny that Christianity has enough problematic parts). Even the 'Christian' Hitler realized that and wanted something more on the lines islam.

I'm missing the point you're making. Are you saying that both the Nazis and the Crusades weren't real Christianity? What do you feel are the core principles of Christianity and why?

One can argue with a lot of support that there is indeed a core of Christianity (belief in the Resurrection, the trinity, belief life after death and a few others) and that there is very little support for violence in that core. Even if we include here the view that the bible is inerrant this do not imply that the Jewish Law is also in the core (Jesus made it obsolete, not valid today). Neither Hitler nor the pope Urban II (via a flawed theology justifying holy war) have a strong justification in the basics of Christianity for their stances. Anyways there are very good reasons to think that hitler only used the 'christian' card to further his political ambitions so the point of the author linked in the OP is moot. Semantics I'm afraid cannot save him.

 

[Keith&Co.]

One can argue with a lot of support that there is indeed a core of Christianity (belief in the Resurrection, the trinity, belief life after death and a few others) and that there is very little support for violence in that core.

Yes, the articles of faith list those. They don't list non-violence, though. Where do you get the idea that violence is non-Christain?

Neither Hitler nor the pope Urban II (via a flawed theology justifying holy war) have a strong justification in the basics of Christianity for their stances.

Or, THEY do, you deviate from the 'core.' Where's the source for your non-violence heresy?

Anyways there are very good reasons to think that hitler only used the 'christian' card to further his political ambitions

is it completely impossible that Hitler WAS A CHRISTAIN and also used Christainity to further his political ambitions in the name of a god he believed in?
Just look at the growing crop of Republican presidential candidates.
Are you saying that every one of the ones that want to be very visible as Christains are 'merely' using the Christain card, and aren't believers?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm missing the point you're making. Are you saying that both the Nazis and the Crusades weren't real Christianity? What do you feel are the core principles of Christianity and why?

One can argue with a lot of support that there is indeed a core of Christianity (belief in the Resurrection, the trinity, belief life after death and a few others) and that there is very little support for violence in that core. Even if we include here the view that the bible is inerrant this do not imply that the Jewish Law is also in the core (Jesus made it obsolete, not valid today). Neither Hitler nor the pope Urban II (via a flawed theology justifying holy war) have a strong justification in the basics of Christianity for their stances. Anyways there are very good reasons to think that hitler only used the 'christian' card to further his political ambitions so the point of the author linked in the OP is moot. Semantics I'm afraid cannot save him.

But is there support for non-violence within that core? Yes, there are Biblical passages which talk about non-violence, just like there are Biblical passages which talk about violence, but I don't see how one or the other qualifies as a core part of Christianity anymore than being anti-gay or pro-slavery is necessary for one to qualify as a "real" Christian.

Also, on a side note, Jesus directly and specifically said that he wasn't making Jewish Law obsolete. He was very clear on that fact and that statement seems to have less basis than the statement that Hitler and Urban weren't real Christians.

 

[Perspicuo]

Of all the popes who condoned and even mandated burning heretics, Jews and disbelievers... the reformers Luther and Calvin preaching hatred about the Jews... what's the score now?

(I didn't even know someone was keeping a score... but if you're going to play that game, awright...)