As Nomad and I have been discussing, it is not obvious that Hitler was a Christian. There is general agreement that he was a theist. Beyond that a good argument can be made either way. If it were obvious nobody would be debating it. Nobody argues about the positions of Franco or Stalin during their years in power.

Michael

It is not a fact that Hitler was a Christian, unless you attach more importance to labels than to substance.

If you saw a can of putrid food labelled "made only from the purest ingredients", would you believe the label or the smell?

A sceptic from this very board has informed me that you do not judge Christianity by the mistaken behaviour of 'adherents' you judge it by the quality of its original teachings.

I agree with that sceptic.

If an atheist was a serial killer would that change your opinion of atheism?

Please re-think your logic and give me your answers. You can do much better than attack Christianity by referring to its most diabolical nominal only members.

Should I judge all atheists by the scornful mockery and violent language of a few?

Blessings and Peace

Hilarius

Hilarious, I agree totally! Well put.

You put it into basic terms that anyone can understand. Christianity is about substance, not a label.

Ish

Bede

Oh dear. Someone else without their reading glasses on. Tollhouse was refering to my 100% true claim that Christians did not burn down the Great Library saying my claim was like neo-Nazi holocaust denial. This makes Tollhouse a 100% proof and wholly ignorant fool.

You, on the other hand, just cannot read.

And for your info, as we've agreed nearly between reasonable atheists and Christians, Hitler was a non-Christian theist.

Bede

Bede's Library - fiaht and reason

Then I have never met one...

1. Hitler was a Christain, he just wasn't a very nice one. I certainly don't advocate basing one opinion of a group based solely on one person.

2. I suppose if you keep redefining Christainity so everyone you dislike isn't a Christain then I suppose you can call Hitler a non-Christain.

Of course I rather tire of Christains saying that such and such wasn't a Christain because they weren't nice or they didn't believe in evolution or they disagreed on some small point of theology.

The one I personally have to deal with is the concept that I wasn't a "true" Christain becuase I left Christainity when I was 17. No "true" Christain alledgely would ever leave Christainity.

Bede,

Whoops, my bad. I read your idea that Hitler wasn't a Christain and that was on my mind when I saw your response to Tollhouse and the mention of the Nazis and that was what I responded to. I'm sorry. I still maintain that Hitler was a Christain however.


[This message has been edited by The Resistance (edited April 20, 2001).]

This proves the veracity of Hilarious' claim: "Christian" is more than just a label Hitler liked to attach to himself. Of course you can always tell a "christian" by his compassionate behavior.

It's the "No True Nazi" argument.

(Actually, you can always tell a christian, but you can't tell him much.)

("100 proof" refers to 50% alcohol, btw.)

[This message has been edited by hezekiahjones (edited April 20, 2001).]

Well Bede, it seems like a certainly did get under your skin with that remark.

Ironically, when I take Christian history into consideration, I would much prefer you do something "un-christian" if we were to meet face-to-face.

And quite frankly being called an ignorant fool by a die-hard Christian has no effect on me anymore. I've been called worse regarding my views by family members who think they love me because I simply don't believe Jesus to be the son of god.

Nonetheless, far be it for me to show no room for growth given the opportunity to learn. After some reflection, I feel, that in this situation, my comments comparing your work to the ideals of nazism was a bit hasty.

I fully understand how frustrating it is to be misunderstood as an evil or immoral person based on simple, innocent beliefs. I apologize.


[This message has been edited by TollHouse (edited April 20, 2001).]

But unfortunately, there is no agreement on what that "substance" is, and no way to resolve arguments among disputing christian factions as to what it should include.

So I am not sure how your comment clears anything up.

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 20, 2001).]

Lance

I would suggest any of those "Hitler Not A Christian" defenders reread Martin Luther's "The Jews and Their Lies". Pay close attention to what Martin says should be done with these people--the Jews.

Hitler merely implemented in 1939-44 what Martin Luther laid out in 1543. So whether or not Hitler was truly a Christian is relatively immaterial. The crime is most certainly a Christian one as the groundwork for it was laid by the German Lutherans, who for quite a while, were lockstep with Hitler and his party.

To further that argument, consider what the Jewish crowd says in that touching fake scene with Pilate about cursing themselves and their children's children. This started years of Christian Jewish persecution that to a degree continues to this very day.

I think an argument can be made either way regarding whether Hitler was a "Christian". Certainly there are quotes aplenty supporting each side, just like the "dueling quotes" issues with the founding fathers in America. There is no doubt either that Hitler was both seriously distrubed (sick) and also rather shrewd in a lot of respects. He came within inches of toppling empires which had stood for many years.