Christian Theology Thread

[Risottia]

...remember the German Protestant Hitler?...

Actually he was born Austrian; was raised as a Catholic a studied in a Catholic school. He became a German citizen in 1932 only.

[The Irish Marchlands]

...remember the German Protestant Hitler?...

Actually he was born Austrian; was raised as a Catholic a studied in a Catholic school. He became a German citizen in 1932 only.

Yeah this was true. Somewhere along the lines he became athiest and started making jokes and rants about religion at private parties while on the other hand making pro-religion speeches to gather the support of Germans during his reign as Fuhrer

[Terraius]

Actually he was born Austrian; was raised as a Catholic a studied in a Catholic school. He became a German citizen in 1932 only.

Yeah this was true. Somewhere along the lines he became athiest and started making jokes and rants about religion at private parties while on the other hand making pro-religion speeches to gather the support of Germans during his reign as Fuhrer

You seem to forget he was bent on enslaving and brainwashing the German people so using deception to win favor should come to mind naturally..

[The Irish Marchlands]

Yeah this was true. Somewhere along the lines he became athiest and started making jokes and rants about religion at private parties while on the other hand making pro-religion speeches to gather the support of Germans during his reign as Fuhrer

You seem to forget he was bent on enslaving and brainwashing the German people so using deception to win favor should come to mind naturally..

Thats not what I was surprised about, what i'm unsure of is exactly when he became athiest.

[Kyr Shorn]

Actually he was born Austrian; was raised as a Catholic a studied in a Catholic school. He became a German citizen in 1932 only.

Yeah this was true. Somewhere along the lines he became athiest and started making jokes and rants about religion at private parties while on the other hand making pro-religion speeches to gather the support of Germans during his reign as Fuhrer

This is not correct, from his various private letters and from the testimony of those who knew him before and during his rule, Hitler was a Christian Deist who felt that he had a calling from God to make Germany "Great" and "Pure". In addition to this, the Nazi Party persecuted Atheists and various non-believers under the banner of Anti-Communism, both in Germany and in the various territories occupied by the Third Reich.

EDIT: In addition to this I would also like to point out that regardless of Hitler’s beliefs, the religious views of those below him who did the actual work were mostly Catholics and Lutherans, who came from a culture with centuries of Anti-Semitic views that had been supported by various religious leaders and institutions.

Plus the role of Nazism as a State Religion should also be noted, i.e. fanatic worship of the "State" as the supreme force.

[Terraius]

Yeah this was true. Somewhere along the lines he became athiest and started making jokes and rants about religion at private parties while on the other hand making pro-religion speeches to gather the support of Germans during his reign as Fuhrer

This is not correct, from his various private letters and from the testimony of those who knew him before and during his rule, Hitler was a Christian Deist who felt that he had a calling from God to make Germany "Great" and "Pure". In addition to this, the Nazi Party persecuted Atheists and various non-believers under the banner of Anti-Communism, both in Germany and in the various territories occupied by the Third Reich.

But one cannot deny that he cattered to Protestants and Catholics as well as other Christian sects to gain support. I remember my great grandfather told me how the Schutzstaffel offered bus rides to Mass every Sunday so the children wouldn't have to walk to their parishes in other towns.

[The Irish Marchlands]

Yeah this was true. Somewhere along the lines he became athiest and started making jokes and rants about religion at private parties while on the other hand making pro-religion speeches to gather the support of Germans during his reign as Fuhrer

This is not correct, from his various private letters and from the testimony of those who knew him before and during his rule, Hitler was a Christian Deist who felt that he had a calling from God to make Germany "Great" and "Pure". In addition to this, the Nazi Party persecuted Atheists and various non-believers under the banner of Anti-Communism, both in Germany and in the various territories occupied by the Third Reich.

Yeah, and he also imprisoned any Christian priests who didnt support the reich, those that did had the good fortune not to end up in camps. I think the only thing we can be sure of is Hitler was a masterful liar in both private and public affairs. either he was lieing to those he knew personally about his Deism or to those he had many long discussions with about his athiesm.

[Kyr Shorn]

Yeah, and he also imprisoned any Christian priests who didnt support the reich, those that did had the good fortune not to end up in camps. I think the only thing we can be sure of is Hitler was a masterful liar in both private and public affairs. either he was lieing to those he knew personally about his Deism or to those he had many long discussions with about his athiesm.

Hitler imprisoned anyone that he deemed to be a threat to his own power, which is what everything in Nazi Germany came down too, the glorification and power of Adolf Hitler.

Oddly enough Wikipedia has a pretty big article about Hiter's religious beliefs here! that deals with both his known religious background, and the speculation.

But I think that whatever he believed, it was tied up with his ego and his warped philosophy that brought the entire world into chaos and everything he ever touched into ruin.

[Obvious Pseudonym]

Hitler had a moustache, ergo all mustachioed people are Nazi scum and racist against Jews.

[Dyakovo]

Discussion is intended to centre on Christian theological issues, not on the subject of God's existence as a whole.

Just a nit-pick, but wouldn't whether or not he exists be a major theological issue?

[The Irish Marchlands]

Discussion is intended to centre on Christian theological issues, not on the subject of God's existence as a whole.

Just a nit-pick, but wouldn't whether or not he exists be a major theological issue?

Naturally yes but I assume we have to take from an argumentitive standpoint that God is a given and that we are to argue over Christian Theological issues in this light.

[The Archregimancy]

<snip>

Arch, I don't appreciate having my words twisted around to mean things that were not implied or said whatsoever. I did not take any sort of new tact, the Bible is and has been discredited as a work of history, unless you really think that there was a global flood, enslavement of the entire Jewish race in Egypt (which Definitely never happened), and that all humans are descended from a man made out of dust and a rib woman who is responsible for all our "sins" because she ate an apple because a serpent told her to do so.

Do tell... in what way did I "twist your words"?

Here is the first post of yours that I quoted:

Prove it, and I wouldn't recomend using the Bible since it has been discredited as an accurate source for historical information.

And here is what you said after at least two posters point out that above sweeping generalisation is not true in its specific applicability to the New Testament:

I think they reject it because they would all be out of a job if the focus of their careers was completely and utterly exposed as a fictional creation. Imagine if thousands of scholars spent their entire lives across the span of two thousand years writing about and discussing to death the various possibilities of Popeye the Sailor Man and then had to face the fact that he was just a made up comic strip character.

I could picture quite a bit of screaming and denial at the declaration that the emperor had no clothes.

As noted at the time, this is intellectually inconsistent in that faced with academic and citable objections to your initial premise, you then take a completely different view. This is not twisting your words; it is a simple statement of fact.

Your apparent basic position is that the clearly allegorical and legendary nature of the opening books of the Old Testament completely discredits our ability to use any part of the Bible as any form of historical document. This is patently not true. It isn't even wholly true of the Old Testament; both books of Kings are, for example, used as a historical document. Not as an unproblematic, literal, unbiased historical document that we can accept without question, no, but then, neither is Herodotus. Holding up classical documentary evidence - or, more accurately, both pre-classical and classical documentary evidence - to a contemporary 21st century standard of historiography is a fairly fundamental error on your part.

As to your specific objections regarding the lack of contemporary historical evidence for Jesus more than , I see that no amount of citing highly respected scholars in the field is going to convince you since you believe you know better. But I refer you back to this post. You are free to read the cited books at your leisure.

Furthermore, it is worth stressing that it was by no means uncommon for oral histories to be written down some 20-60 years after they took place when we are talking about barely literate marginal communities (which is what the early Christian church was), either in the classical period or subsequently. To take a roughly analogous - though imperfect - comparative example, some 600 years later the Koran was an entirely oral volume for some 20 years after Mohammed's death, when the Caliph Uthman followed through on the order of his predecessor Abu Bakr - who had been disturbed at the loss of 70 reciters in a single battle - that it should be written down. The only reason we don't have alternative versions of the Koran analogous to the four Gospels is that Uthman and Abu Bakr were in a somewhat stronger political position than, say, Paul of Tarsus, and were able to destroy the alternatives - which we know did once exist. The Hadith of Mohammed (Sayings of the Prophet), however, weren't finally collated and written down in the definitive format we know today until the 9th century - some 230 years after Mohammed's death. As Harald Motzki (Professor at the Institute of Languages and Cultures of the Middle-East, University of Nijmegen) is quoted in the introduction of Wilferd Madelung's book The Succession to Muhammad (Cambridge University Press 1997) as saying "The mere fact that [individual] ahadith and asanid were forged must not lead us to conclude that all of them are fictitious or that the genuine and the spurious cannot be distinguished with some degree of certainty". While our specific approaches to the different sacred texts involved is, by necessity, not identical, our general approach to the New Testament as a historical document would not be wholly dissimilar.

Summed up, I have offered multiple academic citations by serious scholars of the period. You have offered nothing in return except personal opinion, and often self-contradicting personal opinion at that. Which is all well and good, but since your perspective is opposed by the overwhelming majority of scholarly opinion on the period, you owe it to us to provide us with reputable academic citations to the contrary that support your position before we can take your perspective seriously.

And, for what it's worth, I don't think 'tact' means what you think it does in the context of your first post quoted above.

[The Archregimancy]

Yeah this was true. Somewhere along the lines he became athiest and started making jokes and rants about religion at private parties while on the other hand making pro-religion speeches to gather the support of Germans during his reign as Fuhrer

This is not correct, from his various private letters and from the testimony of those who knew him before and during his rule, Hitler was a Christian Deist who felt that he had a calling from God to make Germany "Great" and "Pure". In addition to this, the Nazi Party persecuted Atheists and various non-believers under the banner of Anti-Communism, both in Germany and in the various territories occupied by the Third Reich.

Do tell, how many views contrary to the majority of mainstream scholarship do you plan on advancing in this thread?

From earlier debates on this topic:

Hitler was a christian, and was raised Catholic. He did not regularly attend church (while campaigning for election he did, and with a passion) but he certainly believed in the bible, and even wrote so in Mein Kampf.

There have been at least two threads over the last two days that try to draw a direct link between Hitler and Christianity, and much of the debate has been spectacularly ill-informed. With the assistance of actual quotes - something which most people contributing don't seem to believe are necessary - I'll attempt to offer a more nuanced perspective.

Yes, Hitler may have been raised Catholic - but since Austria was a Catholic nation with a strong Catholic presence in education, it would have been unusual if he wasn't. Stating that Hitler was raised Catholic is stating the bleedingly obvious.

The real question is whether he remained Catholic/Christian.

On the question of Catholicism, we can state unequivocally that he was opposed to the Catholic church - and Christianity in general - once he was in power. One of the most recent scholarly biographies of Hitler is Ian Kershaw's highly praised two volume effort, and I offer you the following quote, emphasis added, from page 424 of volume 2, Hitler 1936-1945; Nemesis (which I pasted to another thread yesterday).

"Despite Hitler's own repeatedly expressed wish for calm in relations with the [Catholic and Lutheran] Churches as long as the war lasted - the reckoning with Christianity, in his view, had to wait for the final victory - a wave of anti-Church agitation, accompanied by an array of new measures, had taken place during the first half of 1941. The activism appears in the main to have come from below, as anti-Church radicals exploited wartime needs to try and break the vexing hold ... which the Churches continued to have on the population. But it certainly had encouragement from above, particularly through Bormann and the Party Chancellery. In a confidential circular to all Gauleiter in June 1941, Bormann had expressely declared that Christianity and National Socialism were incompatible."

Volume 1 offers more examples than volume 2, but regrettably that's in my office, and I'm typing this at home. Nonetheless, Kershaw offers several explicit example of the hostility of both Hitler specifically and Nazism generally towards Christianity; including Catholicism. A quick check of the index of either book will supply further examples.

What might Mein Kampf and Hitler's speeches have to say about his attitudes before he was in power? I've done an admittedly quick check, and certainly Hitler explicitly referred to himself as a Christian in some political speeches. However, I can't find a single example of Hitler explicitly referring to himself as a Christian that post-dates the Munich Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. This seems to signal a change in his willingness to say "I am a Christian".

Mein Kampf is a more nuanced issue. Anyone parsing the book will be able to find references to God and a creator. Here's a couple of typical examples (from the 1999 Mariner Books edition):

"The world has no reason for fighting in our defense, and as a matter of principle God does not make cowardly nations free.” (pg 622)
"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator." (pg 125)

Attempts to find quotes that explicitly state that Hitler is a Christian, is supporting Christianity, or believes his values are compatible with Christianity or inspired by Christianity are harder to come by. I couldn't find one, though again my check was fairly brief. What you will find are individual quotes praising some aspect of historical Christianity rather than current Christian beliefs. An example might include:

"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but
in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."

Not so much a ringing endorsement of Christian faith that; more an attempt to use (or mis-use, depending on perspective) the rise of Christianity as an example of why Hitler believed negotiation should be rejected in favour of fanatical doctrinal belief.

The totality of the evidence, suggests that while Hitler was raised a Catholic, and was happy to state that he was a Christian in the earliest days of the Nazi Party prior to the Beer Hall Putsch, by the time he came to power his hostility towards both Christianity and Catholicism was overt. However, he considered winning the war more important than eradicating the Catholic and Lutheran churches, and delayed the 'final reckoning' with Christianity as a result. It may seem inconceivable to some of the younger contributors here, but an individual's personal beliefs and political perspectives can evolve over time.

However - and this is an important point - stating that Hitler was actively opposed to Christianity by the late 1930s is not the same as stating that he was an atheist. Here the evidence is at best ambiguous, and multiple interpretations are possible. There can be little doubt that, post-1936, Hitler believed that he had been chosen by 'providence' to lead Germany to inevitable victory (though by late 1944, he knew the war was lost). His public and private pronouncements often make reference to divine favour and a creator even while anti-Christian oppression was growing in Nazi Germany. While again the evidence is inconclusive, it's by no means unreasonable to assume that Hitler may have continued to believe in a divine presence even while eventually rejecting Christianity. Given that a significant number of people on NS express similar beliefs (summed up as "I was raised a Christian, but I'm not anymore, in fact I feel some hostility towards the Church, but I still believe in some sort of God") that surely shouldn't be too hard a possibility to grasp.

they say a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

is that what your trying to do?

Not at all. As GeneralHaNor has pointed out, I'm merely citing the latest academic work - all of it reputable - on Hitler's complex interaction with Catholicism.

But let's say the quotes I kept using in this thread aren't good enough for you; or perhaps my constant repetition of the same 2009 post suggests that I don't have anything else to add to the topic....

Maybe you'd instead like some citations from Michael Burleigh's The Third Reich: A New History, which also happened to be the winner the 2001 BBC Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction. Perhaps that might count as an additional reputable source?

Burleigh devotes an entire chapter to the vexed issue of the Nazis and religion ("Men of God", pp. 717-728).

The introductory paragraph, on page 717, reads (with emphasis added):

National Socialism, like other totalitarian dictatorships, parodied many of the eschatological and liturgical attributes of redemptive religions, while being fundamentally antagonistic towards the Churches: rivals, the Nazis saw it, in the subtle, totalising control of minds. However, the overwhelmingly Christian character of the German people meant that that Hitler dissembled his personal views behind preachy invocations of the Almighty, and distanced himself from the radically irreligious in his own Party, even though his own views were probably more extreme. During the Weimar period, he periodically traduced the Roman Catholic Centre Party for engaging in coalitions with 'atheist internationalists' in the SPD. In reality, his views were a mixture of materialist biology, a faux-Nietzschean contempt for core, as distinct from secondary, Christian values, and a visceral anti-clericism.

On the same page, Burleigh then quotes Hitler himself as noting, in a statement particularly germane to the current discussion of St. Peter's heir (again, selective emphasis added):

The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life's final task will be to solve the religious problem. Only then will the German nation be entirely secure once and for all. I don't interfere in matters of belief. Therefore I can't allow churchmen to interfere with temporal affairs. The organised lie must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master. When I was younger, I thought that is was necessary to set about matters with dynamite. I've since realised that there's room for a little subtlety. The rotten branch falls of itself. The final scene must be: in St. Peter's chair, a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and as poor in spirit as anyone could wish. The young and healthy are on our side.

According to the relevant footnote, Burleigh sourced this from Hugh Trevor-Roper's Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, pp. 142-145, with the quote dated 13 December 1941.

On page 718, Burleigh also quotes Hitler as stating in the same discussion that "St. Paul was responsible for mobilising the 'criminal underworld on behalf of 'proto-Bolshevism'. Christianity signified nothing but 'wholehearted Bolshevism under a tinsel of metaphysics' ... Christianity was 'an invention of sick brains', 'a negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation'."

Hitler concludes by stating "I dream of a state of affairs in which every man would know that he lives and dies for the preservation of the state."

Still on page 718, Burleigh states, in reference to that last Hitler quote (again, my emphasis added):

This is probably where things tended, with Greiser's Godless Warthegau [the previously Polish, and before that previously Prussian, region around Poznan] functioning as the laboratory for future policy. For policies inhibited by reasons of state in Germany and Austria, not to speak of France or Norway, could be implemented with radical impunity in occupied Poland, particularly since Roman Catholicism was so integral to a Polish nationhood the Nazis sought to extirpate. A densely rich spiritual scene was rapidly reduced to a desert. By 1941, almost all of the churches and chapels in the diocese of Posen-Gnesen were closed, and 11 per cent of the Catholic clergy had been murdered. Virtually all of the remainder had been deported or imprisoned. Many of them suffered martyrdom in Nazi concentration camps.

But what about all of those Hitler quotes about 'God' and 'the Almighty' you bleat? We've already partially dealt with these in my previous post, but Burleigh is even more explicit here. On page 719, he addresses this by noting that when Hitler said things like "the national government sees in the Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of society" in his opening speech to the Reichstag, or when Protestants were told that the 'nominally Catholic' Hitler 'thought like a Protestant', this was just a short- to medium-term political tactic used to help gain and consolidate power in an overwhelmingly Christian country.

You want a quick one sentence summary of the above?

Newsflash! Totalitarian dictator says one thing in public for purely cynical political reason, then reveals his actual policy to his inner circle in private!

NSG must be overwhelmed with stunned amazement.

You asked me what I'm trying to do... In these posts, I'm not trying to associate atheism or anti-theism (not quite the same thing) with Hitler in order to associate atheism with Nazism. I consider that argument as misleading as stating that Hitler was Catholic or Christian, and associating Nazism with theism. The latter two arguments are generally stressed by atheists and theists who want to somehow associate Hitler's genocidal regime with their opponents. This is a distraction. Hitler carried out his atrocities because he was a fundamentally warped and evil man, which he probably would have been regardless of his beliefs (or lack thereof). But nonetheless Hitler was clearly opposed to Christianity generally and Catholicism specifically by the time he came to power, whatever his pre-WWI beliefs might have been.

The problems here would be

• The realibility of your sources' sources isn't addressed (Table talk)
• Distinguishing between the faith, and the organisation of the faith. It is indeed true that Hitler had issues with the catholic church, since his goal was indeed absolute power within the areas he intended to conquer for Germany - a goal the church was certainly in the way of. This does not, however, make him not a christian - is anyone doubting the christianity of the rather significant number of european kings and emperors who developed a habit of attacking, deposing and imposing popes? They are Hitler's model, and I've yet to hear of them being described as not-christians by any reputable historian.
• The endless whining about 'Hitler persecuted christians!'. Hitler also persecuted blonde, blue-eyed Germans if they happened to disagree with his regime. Does this make him a germanophobe? Even more hilarious is the reference to Poland in particular - of course the Polish clergy was a target, they belonged to a slavic people, were frequently engaged in activities directed against the occupiers, etc. Is it really so far fetched to presume that it was targeted because of these things, rather than because they happened to be christian?

I'm well aware of the issues with the Table Talk. The precise problem is that the specific phrasing of Lord Dacre's (Hugh Trevor Roper's) English translation is disputed; Lord Dacre seems to have translated directly from the French translation, rather than using the original German. Therefore the specific language cited as being used by Hitler in the English translation has been the subject of dispute. However, no one seriously doubts that Hitler did express the anti-Christian views noted in the table talk, which was initially compiled by Bormann and a party functionary called Henry Picker. The initial French translation used by Lord Dacre, the accuracy of which isn't disputed, was directly compiled from Bormann's notes. Hitler's anti-Christian sentiments were independently verified by Hitler confidantes such as Speer, Goebbels, Bormann, and Traudl Junge. None of this is difficult to track down. The only real controversy is over precise phrasing in the English edition, not over the general sentiments expressed, which can be verified in both the German and French editions, and in separate comments by close associates of Hitler.

The mistake you are making in turn is in implying that this controversy over a single source used by just one of the reputable academic books I used somehow undermines the entire argument. Kershaw - another one of my sources, and the one I initially relied on in the first detailed post - intentionally avoided using the Table Talk. Burleigh only uses it in one brief section; and I reiterate that Burleigh's book was awarded the prestigious BBC Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction in 2001, which does suggest that someone other than myself found it to be broadly acceptable as historical research. If you find that specific chapter of Burleigh's book unconvincing, you can also try "The Brown Cult and the Christians" (pp. 252-267), you'll find plenty of other supporting examples that make no use of the Table Talk.

In terms of the Poles, I think you'll find, if you care to read the relevant post again, that I directly addressed the issue you raise, by explicitly noting that yes, of course the Nazis directly targeted Catholicism among the Poles for some of the very reasons you cite; you forget the bit where the evidence shows that the Warthegau (Poznan) was merely a laboratory for policies that the Nazis planned on implementing across the entirety of their territory once they won the war, but which they were unable to implement at the time for purely political reasons. Try reading this bit again: "This is probably where things tended, with Greiser's Godless Warthegau functioning as the laboratory for future policy. For policies inhibited by reasons of state in Germany and Austria, not to speak of France or Norway, could be implemented with radical impunity in occupied Poland, particularly since Roman Catholicism was so integral to a Polish nationhood the Nazis sought to extirpate."

We can bring in another reputable historian here if you need another. Let's take Baron Bullock's (Alan Bullock's) highly regarded 1991 work Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives. On page 381, Bullock writes - supporting both Kershaw and Burleigh's views on precisely the same point - that:

"Political reasons led Hitler to restrain his anticlericalism and refuse to let himself be drawn into attacking the Church publicly, as Bormann and other Nazis would have liked him to do. But he promised himself that, when the time came, he would settle his account with the priests of both creeds."

Again, all of this is accepted by the overwhelming majority of mainstream historians.

Ultimately, you're reduced to making a series of unsubstantiated claims that you can only back up by reference to a partisan non-academic web page. If that suits you, then fine - but to do so continues to fly in the face in the overwhelming majority of mainstream reputable research. Rather deliciously, this is a similar approach used by creationists; ignore the evidence offered by the overwhelming majority of reputable experts, focus on making misleading attacks on a single potentially controversial part of one expert's discussion, and rely on fringe websites that substantiate your own worldview to back you up. You must be very proud to have such fine bedfellows in debating technique.

In any case, the real mistake you seem to be making is in assuming that I'm trying to directly associate Hitler with atheism, and somehow attempting to traduce atheism by doing so. I'm doing no such thing, as my post at the top of this page makes clear, and as do other comments in my older Kershaw-based post. I consider arguing over the nature of Hitler's precise beliefs in an attempt to suggest that either atheism or theism contributed to making him an evil shit to be a distraction. In fact, I'm perfectly willing to accept that Hitler may have had some sort of nebulous belief in a form of divine 'providence', though short of bringing Herr Shicklgruber back from the dead, we'll never know either way, will we? Goebbels wrote in his diaries in 1939 that Hitler was simultaneously "profoundly anti-Christian" and "deeply religious", so his inner circle didn't find the two concepts entirely incompatible.

Nonetheless, that Hitler was anti-Christian generally and anti-Catholic specifically, and that he planned on a full-frontal attack on Christianity within the German Reich after achieving victory, and that the attack had already been launched in some geographic areas of the Reich, is entirely accepted and substantiated by the overwhelming majority of modern historians.

Now, if you have reputable academic sources that argue otherwise - and random unsubstantiated websites by non-academics with an axe to grind very much don't count - or if you can provide cited research of your own which might demonstrate why I should take you more seriously than Sir Ian Kershaw, Baron Bullock (who was also, as it happens, a vice-chancellor of Oxford University), Michael Burleigh, Albert Speer, Martin Bormann, and Joseph Goebbels, then you're very welcome to provide it here. In the meantime, I know whom I find more convincing.

However, note that I strongly agree with your further point on the persecution of atheists. That Hitler was anti-Christian by the time he achieved power should not be used to suggest some sort of untenable argument that Christianity in any way suffered unusual or unique persecution under the Nazis.

[Risottia]

Actually he was born Austrian; was raised as a Catholic a studied in a Catholic school. He became a German citizen in 1932 only.

Yeah this was true. Somewhere along the lines he became athiest and started making jokes and rants about religion at private parties while on the other hand making pro-religion speeches to gather the support of Germans during his reign as Fuhrer

That is, in an astounding twist of news: religio instrumentum regni.

[Risottia]

Discussion is intended to centre on Christian theological issues, not on the subject of God's existence as a whole.

Just a nit-pick, but wouldn't whether or not he exists be a major theological issue?

Yea, it is.

wiki: aquinas
Pope Benedict XV declared: "The Church has declared Thomas' doctrine to be her own."[3]
...
Aquinas believed that the existence of God is neither obvious nor unprovable. In the Summa Theologica, he considered in great detail five reasons for the existence of God. These are widely known as the quinque viae, or the "Five Ways."
Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not.

[The Archregimancy]

That is, in an astounding twist of news: religio instrumentum regni.

I'd respectfully offer a subtle, but important distinction on that point, Riso. I'd argue that the particular example referred to here entailed a temporary manipulation and tolerance of religion by the bodies of the state rather than using religion as a means or instrument of state rule; religio instrumentum regni, in its technical medieval use, implies a more theocratic state of affairs than is necessarily the case here.

[Risottia]

That is, in an astounding twist of news: religio instrumentum regni.

I'd respectfully offer a subtle, but important distinction on that point, Riso. I'd argue that the particular example referred to here entailed a temporary manipulation and tolerance of religion by the bodies of the state rather than using religion as a means or instrument of state rule; religio instrumentum regni, in its technical medieval use, implies a more theocratic state of affairs than is necessarily the case here.

You're right - I was taking it out of its technical, established use, by factoring in the religious aspects of the Nazi totalitarianism, Hitler's ambiguous relationship with both Catholic and Lutheran Churches, and the instrumental use of ethno-religious arguments in his public speeches.

[The Archregimancy]

Yea, it is.

wiki: aquinas
Pope Benedict XV declared: "The Church has declared Thomas' doctrine to be her own."[3]
...
Aquinas believed that the existence of God is neither obvious nor unprovable. In the Summa Theologica, he considered in great detail five reasons for the existence of God. These are widely known as the quinque viae, or the "Five Ways."
Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not.

And a further nit-pick. I think you slightly misrepresent Aquinas' views on apophatic theology there. While Aquinas offers the most detailed Catholic exploration of what Westerners term the via negativa, he considered negative and positive statements about God to be necessary opposite approaches that could be combined into a final theological synthesis.

It's the Orthodox Church, which openly and explicitly considers apophatic theology to be superior to cataphatic [positive] theology that offers the more complete development of the approach. As a part of Orthodox theology, it dates back to the 4th-century Cappadocian saints Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, and Gregory Nazianzus, and was further developed by John Chrysostom (a contemporary of the Cappadocians) and John of Damascus (8th century).

Curiously, the Catholic Church gives primacy of position in arguing the apophatic approach to Aquinas, despite recognising the Eastern theologians - who are all much more prominent in Orthodox doctrine - as doctors of the Church.

[Risottia]

Yea, it is.

wiki: aquinas
Pope Benedict XV declared: "The Church has declared Thomas' doctrine to be her own."[3]
...
Aquinas believed that the existence of God is neither obvious nor unprovable. In the Summa Theologica, he considered in great detail five reasons for the existence of God. These are widely known as the quinque viae, or the "Five Ways."
Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not.

And a further nit-pick. I think you slightly misrepresent Aquinas' views on apophatic theology there. ...

Not quite, there. I was merely pointing out that, as proving the existance of God is a key issue in the Aquinas' work, and as the Pope insisted that his doctrine is doctrine of the Church, we can say that the point of the existance of God is pivotal in Christian Theology.
I hadn't the faintest idea of teaching anyone anything about the Aquinas' doctrine per se - it's more than 10 years since I last studied him, and I would be lying through my teeth if I said I remember much of it.

[The Archregimancy]

Not quite, there. I was merely pointing out that, as proving the existance of God is a key issue in the Aquinas' work, and as the Pope insisted that his doctrine is doctrine of the Church, we can say that the point of the existance of God is pivotal in Christian Theology.

Hmmm; I'd still argue that the point of negative and positive theology isn't so much proving the existence of God - which most Christian doctrines would take as a given - but rather how best to approach defining the nature of God.

And there, the basic distinction between the two approaches here is whether to (oversimplifying)
A) take the approach that the precise nature of God is inherently unknowable, and we can only make definitive statements about what He is not.
B) take the approach that we can make definitive statements about what He is.

But you're almost certainly more familiar with the specifics of Catholic doctrine than I am, so if this point is represented differently in Catholic countries, then you would know better than I would.

[Newest Accord]

Who's heard a good rabbi and a priest joke lately?

Dunno if it's old or new, but there's this joke about the rabbi, his son, the priest and his nephew...

A rabbi meets a priest, and they start talking about the rabbi's son and the priest's nephew.
The rabbi envisions a bright future for his son: he'll clear the MIT, then the London School of Economics with ease, he'll become the CEO of a major multinational, enter politics and become the first Jewish President of the US ever!
The priest also has high expectations about his nephew: he'll go for classical studies, but he also has a great vocation, so he'll become priest, too - and thanks to his intelligence, culture and kindness he'll rise to bishop, then cardinal, and he'll become the first American Pope ever!
But the rabbi asks: -Wonderful, but what about AFTER being Pope?
The priest, a bit shocked, replies: -What do you mean? You become Pope and that's it - there's nothing above being Pope! Do you expect him to become God?
-Nu, after all one of our lads managed exactly to do so...

Bad joke but it's a religious one...so it seems to belong here.

[Newest Accord]

Yeah, and he also imprisoned any Christian priests who didnt support the reich, those that did had the good fortune not to end up in camps. I think the only thing we can be sure of is Hitler was a masterful liar in both private and public affairs. either he was lieing to those he knew personally about his Deism or to those he had many long discussions with about his athiesm.

Hitler imprisoned anyone that he deemed to be a threat to his own power, which is what everything in Nazi Germany came down too, the glorification and power of Adolf Hitler.

Oddly enough Wikipedia has a pretty big article about Hiter's religious beliefs here! that deals with both his known religious background, and the speculation.

But I think that whatever he believed, it was tied up with his ego and his warped philosophy that brought the entire world into chaos and everything he ever touched into ruin.

Positive Christianity...to begin with; then he changed his mind after dealing with... spammers. This isn't a Nazi thread.

[Newest Accord]

Yeah this was true. Somewhere along the lines he became athiest and started making jokes and rants about religion at private parties while on the other hand making pro-religion speeches to gather the support of Germans during his reign as Fuhrer

You seem to forget he was bent on enslaving and brainwashing the German people so using deception to win favor should come to mind naturally..

Bullshit. He was a kind and gentileman who did more for his people than you could ever understand. That said. This is not a Nazi thread. I have a response to your earlier claim that we should love each other and all are equal.

"love each other" Look at that closely Terraius. It will people to understand what that means. Each other; is the individual self, projected to another individual self where you believe they share the same values as you, will not harm you, and will help you. It's placing trust in the 'other' as you would trust yourself. This gets extended to those in close proximity and relationship with that 'other' after a 'trust bridge' is formed between you the individual, and them, the other.

This human bonding, or friendship, can be extended only so far without being problematic in that when you lose personal judgment using your values by allowing the 'other' to vouch for people you don't know.

This breaks the sense of community. A true community is a cluster of family groups that know all parts of the whole and can vouch for their good standing, and will stand together in defense of the community to any outside forces. In other words; people in the community they are not a threat to anyone within that community. This is something we had at one time...before people got greedy.
A fine example of a true community is the Amish.

When you have a large enough true community that is needs to find new territory; a group breaks off and starts it's own smaller version. Repeat cycle. Once there are multiple cells, or community groups, then they can build a larger organization. (Yes I'm using cell theory.)
That larger organization can be called a True Nation. A true nation is a collection of these true communities that act as one in common interest and defense.

What we have now is an abomination of this system. It's a melting pot of hostile communities in the form of a nation of chaos; where laws continue to force integration and amalgamation of the various true communities into one big global mess. You wonder why we have wars.

Nature. I don't believe in your Christian God; or any other God or Gods in the form of a creature. I made this unclear earlier. If you want a name I'll say the One Power, from the Source, which is the Creator. For the Transformer fans...call it the All-Spark. Doesn't matter. Religion; is a construct of the human mind to explain the unexplainable by giving it names, therefor giving it purpose, and perpetuating the myths. Science; is the path of understanding as much of that unexplainable, to make it explainable by the scientific method.

The human animal is just that; animal. I'd like to laugh and call us Manimals. We protect our own; whether that be just family group, or expanded to include other families like us. No animal is equal to another; within, or without the pack. Christians; and others, act like sheep because they believe that all people are the same and equal. It goes against nature. This is different than Natural Law; for religions twisted the meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

And Terraius; I noticed earlier a blanket reply to people instead of attributing quotes to them. Can you make that change please. Quotes out of context or unattributed force folks to look throughout the thread for them, to see who posted them.

[Osthia]

You seem to forget he was bent on enslaving and brainwashing the German people so using deception to win favor should come to mind naturally..

Bullshit. He was a kind and gentileman who did more for his people than you could ever understand. That said. This is not a Nazi thread. I have a response to your earlier claim that we should love each other and all are equal.

"love each other" Look at that closely Terraius. It will people to understand what that means. Each other; is the individual self, projected to another individual self where you believe they share the same values as you, will not harm you, and will help you. It's placing trust in the 'other' as you would trust yourself. This gets extended to those in close proximity and relationship with that 'other' after a 'trust bridge' is formed between you the individual, and them, the other.

This human bonding, or friendship, can be extended only so far without being problematic in that when you lose personal judgment using your values by allowing the 'other' to vouch for people you don't know.

This breaks the sense of community. A true community is a cluster of family groups that know all parts of the whole and can vouch for their good standing, and will stand together in defense of the community to any outside forces. In other words; people in the community they are not a threat to anyone within that community. This is something we had at one time...before people got greedy.
A fine example of a true community is the Amish.

When you have a large enough true community that is needs to find new territory; a group breaks off and starts it's own smaller version. Repeat cycle. Once there are multiple cells, or community groups, then they can build a larger organization. (Yes I'm using cell theory.)
That larger organization can be called a True Nation. A true nation is a collection of these true communities that act as one in common interest and defense.

What we have now is an abomination of this system. It's a melting pot of hostile communities in the form of a nation of chaos; where laws continue to force integration and amalgamation of the various true communities into one big global mess. You wonder why we have wars.

Nature. I don't believe in your Christian God; or any other God or Gods in the form of a creature. I made this unclear earlier. If you want a name I'll say the One Power, from the Source, which is the Creator. For the Transformer fans...call it the All-Spark. Doesn't matter. Religion; is a construct of the human mind to explain the unexplainable by giving it names, therefor giving it purpose, and perpetuating the myths. Science; is the path of understanding as much of that unexplainable, to make it explainable by the scientific method.

The human animal is just that; animal. I'd like to laugh and call us Manimals. We protect our own; whether that be just family group, or expanded to include other families like us. No animal is equal to another; within, or without the pack. Christians; and others, act like sheep because they believe that all people are the same and equal. It goes against nature. This is different than Natural Law; for religions twisted the meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

And Terraius; I noticed earlier a blanket reply to people instead of attributing quotes to them. Can you make that change please. Quotes out of context or unattributed force folks to look throughout the thread for them, to see who posted them.

"A KIND AND GENTLE MAN?" Are you insane? Ever hear of the Holocaust? Anyone who says that Hitler was "kind and gentle" is insane! The Lord, I think, bided his time regarding Hitler, and waited until the time was right. Hitler shoots himself, and his body is burned, just like the bodies of those he ordered executed. This is justice, and I bet you that God was laughing as He sent that Nazi bastard to Hell.

[The Mal Clan]

I am a Baptist Christian.

I believe Jesus is the Son of God, and is part of the Holy Trinity. I believe that God created the universe through a 6 day creation, and that he punished mankind 4,400 years ago with a worldwide flood.
I believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin, and grew up to become the Sacrifice needed to save the world from it's sins.
I believe that the Catholic Religion is not true 'Christianity' because it paganizes many of the True principles. Reasons for this:
the Renaming of established Roman gods with Christian Names (Venus=Mary, Sol=Jesus, ETC)
You have to work for salvation. Jesus taught that he is the only way to heaven.
It's leaders secretly know the truth that the Bible says Jesus is the only way, but uses it's traditions and rituals to keep it's People in check.

Christianity is the only belief that has a Scientifically accurate holy book. Things like ocean currents, the Earth Being round, sending messages by electricity.

My dislikes:
Evolution- A heavily guarded state Religion, in the guise of Science. a Majority of the supposed proofs of Evolution can be proven wrong and false. Evolution is the tree that, Racism, Communism, Socialism, Nazism, and Marxism, all branched out from.
Homosexuality- Human actions that go against the natural order.
Abortion-Murder of thousands of innocent lives. It's a shame when humanity chars more for preserving animal rights than saving babies lives.