# Was Hitler a Christian? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [September 26, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096 "2010-09-26T14:18:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/141 "2010-11-26T17:27:10Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The subject of the treatment of Jews under the Romans is worthy of yet another thread - and I know little about it. > > But aside from the obvious conflicts created by the Jewish revolt(s), didn’t the Emperor Claudius exile the Jews from Rome itself? What were his reasons for that? [Suetonius](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Suetonius) says that Claudius temporarily banished Jews from the city of Rome (though he treated Jews well before then) because they were “causing disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” He gives no ther details. No one knows who “Chrestus” was. Some people have hypothesized that it’s a misspelling of “Christus” and that Claudius banished Jews because the Romans did not particularly distinguish between Christians and Jews at that point, but this doesn’t really hold up since Chrestus itself was a common name (especially for slaves. It was based on a Greek word meaning “useful,” and had a somewhat patronizing/demeaning application for slaves), and because Suetonius shows elsewhere in his writings that he knew the difference between Jews and Christians. Exactly what _was_ going on in 49 CE is unclear, but the edict was short-lived and not renewed by Claudius’ successor, Nero. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/142 "2010-11-26T17:37:54Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > What about Roman attitudes toward Jews. The Romans held _everybody else_ in low regard, even those more recently Roman than themselves (the Latinate allies had been Roman citizens for a long time while still being looked down on by inhabitants of the city itself, for example). It’s a mistake to take it personally. Historian John Keegan wrote: [QUOTE=A History of Warfare] Roman imperialism was in large part the result of quite rational behaviour on the part of the Romans, but it also had dark and irrational roots. One of the most striking features of Roman warfare is its regularity – almost every year [for century after century] the Romans went out and did massive violence to someone – and this regularity gives the phenomenon a pathological character. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![sjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@sjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjc)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/143 "2010-11-27T18:28:36Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > To my mind, the pinning of responsibility on Christians for the Nazi Holocaust is a bit of a red herring. Certainly, the Nazis made Jew-hating a central plank of their platform because of cultural anti-Semitism, which descended ultimately from the legacy left by Christianity (though it had been absorbed by the 1930s by many who were not in the least Christian) … but that only influenced their choice of one target (or perhaps two targets, as one could also argue that cultural homophobia ultimately has Christian roots). They _also_ targeted Roma, certain Slavs, the mentally challenged, **Communists** , etc. about all of whom the cultural legacy of Christianity had nothing to say whatsoever. (Bolding mine) I’d say that Christianity had something to say about Communists. I’ll grant you that the Christian dislike of Communism wasn’t long-standing, but Communism hadn’t existed for very long when Nazi-ism came around. I’m not putting the blame on Christianity for the anti-Communist stance of the Nazi party, but it’s not correct to say that it had “nothing to say about it whatsoever”. I think that you simply cannot escape the fact that every single\* Nazi grew up in a culturally Christian milieu. They may have been raised athiest or pagan or in a non-practising environment, but growing up in Europe at that time (or today, to perhaps a lesser extent) meant you were exposed to Christianity all around you. Hitler may not have been a Christian by the time he was a Nazi, but he was very clearly raised Catholic and I don’t think you can escape the conclusion that Christianity (specifically Catholicism) shaped him. I can’t say for certain whether he was a Christian or not in his adult years, but he was certainly influenced by his Christian upbringing. \*I may be overstating the case in that some Nazis may have grown up in China or Japan or some other non-Christian country, but even then it’s likely they were exposed to Christian ideas by their family (there would be a good chance they were missionaries). ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/144 "2010-11-28T18:10:12Z")
> [@sjc](#): > > (Bolding mine) I’d say that Christianity had something to say about Communists. I’ll grant you that the Christian dislike of Communism wasn’t long-standing, but Communism hadn’t existed for very long when Nazi-ism came around. I’m not putting the blame on Christianity for the anti-Communist stance of the Nazi party, but it’s not correct to say that it had “nothing to say about it whatsoever”. My point was not that ‘modern’ Christian leaders had nothing to say about Communism - clearly they did - but that a cultural legacy of hatred towards Communism wasn’t a ‘gift’ bequeathed to European culture by Christianity. Hence my use of the phrase " the cultural legacy of Christianity ". Point here is that the Nazis killed a variety of victims, some for reasons ‘traditional’ (though harkening back to the medieval period) and some not. Their choice was eccentric and idiosyncratic to say the least, and based purely on the Nazis’ own notions of which bits of their history to emphasize - for example, they chose to stress the allegedly ancient roots of the conflict between Slav and German, but not that between German and Roman; they chose to emphasize the ancient conflict between Christian and Jew, but not the conflict between Christian and Muslim … they allied themselves with the “new Roman empire” of Mussolini (in spite of the fact that German nationalists had made a fetish out if the German defeat of the Romans at the Teutonburg Forest: [Battle of the Teutoburg Forest - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest#German_nationalism) ) > [@](#): > > I think that you simply cannot escape the fact that every single\* Nazi grew up in a culturally Christian milieu. They may have been raised athiest or pagan or in a non-practising environment, but growing up in Europe at that time (or today, to perhaps a lesser extent) meant you were exposed to Christianity all around you. > > Hitler may not have been a Christian by the time he was a Nazi, but he was very clearly raised Catholic and I don’t think you can escape the conclusion that Christianity (specifically Catholicism) shaped him. I can’t say for certain whether he was a Christian or not in his adult years, but he was certainly influenced by his Christian upbringing. > > \*I may be overstating the case in that some Nazis may have grown up in China or Japan or some other non-Christian country, but even then it’s likely they were exposed to Christian ideas by their family (there would be a good chance they were missionaries). Undoubtedly, they grew up in a culture shaped by Christianity. But I don’t think that this cultural legacy is the ‘proximate cause’ of Nazi outrages, any more than Christianity is the proximate cause of Communist outrages - even though the Russian Communists, likewise, grew up in a culture permiated with Christianity. The Nazis chose to emphasize the ancient Christian legacy of Jew-hatred, for their own reasons. Likewise, the ancient legacy of slav-hatred. They could just as easily have chosen other ancient hatreds - but instead, and even in spite of the history of Germanic romanticism which they spang from, chose quite deliberately to overlook or de-emphasize them: a German alliance with a “new Roman empire” being just the start - why not a pogrom against Muslims? That has quite respectible Christian roots - but the Nazis allied with some Muslim groups instead. ---
**Author:** ![sjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@sjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sjc)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/145 "2010-11-28T20:56:36Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > My point was not that ‘modern’ Christian leaders had nothing to say about Communism - clearly they did - but that a cultural legacy of hatred towards Communism wasn’t a ‘gift’ bequeathed to European culture by Christianity. Hence my use of the phrase " the cultural legacy of Christianity ". > > […] > > Undoubtedly, they grew up in a culture shaped by Christianity. But I don’t think that this cultural legacy is the ‘proximate cause’ of Nazi outrages, any more than Christianity is the proximate cause of Communist outrages - even though the Russian Communists, likewise, grew up in a culture permiated with Christianity. I won’t disagree with these points. Certainly Communism under that name doesn’t go back very far, but it doesn’t have to go back very far for there to have been a reasonably established tradition of anti-communism. As for the issue of ‘proximate cause’, I would agree with you that Christianity probably wasn’t the proximate cause. Nevertheless, it almost certainly was in the mix of things that formed the Nazi mentality. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/146 "2010-11-28T21:28:05Z")
> [@sjc](#): > > I won’t disagree with these points. Certainly Communism under that name doesn’t go back very far, but it doesn’t have to go back very far for there to have been a reasonably established tradition of anti-communism. As for the issue of ‘proximate cause’, I would agree with you that Christianity probably wasn’t the proximate cause. Nevertheless, it almost certainly was in the mix of things that formed the Nazi mentality. Yes, absolutely. But that’s simply a given. Any and every movement started in Europe at that time would have Christianity as part of their “mentality”, because one cannot escape one’s cultural milieu. This says nothing much about Christianity, though. The presence or absence of Christianity was not ‘necessary’ for Nazis to exist or to commit atrocities, other than the banal sense that any important aspect of history and culture is ‘necessary’ for the future to unfold as it did. Nazism, like the other forms of fascism current at the time in Italy and Spain, took certain carefully-chosen aspects of the past to glorify, complete with cultural heroes and villians. Mussolini was the ‘original’ fascist leader, and he took his inspiration from the pre-Christian Roman Empire - and, until bayonet-prodded by Hitler, cared little for oppressing Jews specifically. Even though Mussolini was operating in a Christian milieu, just like Hitler, he simply _decided_ to emphasize other heroes and villians (ironically enough, the Mussolini/Hitler pair could just as easily have chosen each other’s cultures as ‘villians’ if they wanted to). My point here is that there was nothing inevitable about the Nazi choice of Jews to persecute. Certainly, cultural anti-semitism was quite prevelant at the time and certainly it was based originally on Christian prejudices. However, that merely provided the Nazis with a potential choice of victim; the Nazis were not restricted to that choice, and indeed, could have chosen quite differently, or not to persecute anyone for religious or ethnic identity - as other fascists did. If they were strictly motivated by the choice of Christianity’s chosen villians, they ought logically have chosen to persecute Muslims as well - but they did not. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/147 "2010-11-29T04:12:52Z")
Hitler was a massive d-bag. No cite provided. ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/148 "2010-11-30T05:00:00Z")
Was Hitler a Christian? He probably thought himself one because Christianity was part of the German identity. Of course, he supported lots of neo-pagean stuff too. As others have stated, his philosophy wasn’t very consistent. What Hitler really hated was anything that could challenge his authority. I suspect his anti-atheist actions were more directed to the Communists than to Atheists in general. His anti-Christian remarks were again the hatred of something that was independent of his authority. Hitler (like Stalin) simply assumed that all power was rightfully his and his alone. Anything that could help him hold that power was good. Anything that could challenge that power was bad. If he could get the various churches to cooperate with him, he would support them. If he could use their organizational structure to increase his power, so much the better. Would that make him a Christian or would that simply make him a power hungry maniac? When I was growing up, I was an Atheist. I grew up in the Bible Belt and hated the self righteous smirkiness of many of the Southern Baptists around me. I hated the deception used for religious gain. I hated being picked upon for being different. If this was religion, I wanted nothing to do with it. My religious revelation came when I entered college and joined the Skeptic Society. It was there I learned that you didn’t need God to be a self righteous jerk. The main point of the entire article was in the second to last paragraph. After hashing through evidence that sometimes points to Hitler being a Christian and sometimes showing him as anti-Christian, the article calls that debate what it actually is: A cheap shot to prove those who disagree with you wrong and evil and you right and good. In the end, it really doesn’t matter whether Hitler was a Christian or an Atheist. He was a person who committed horrendous crimes against millions of human beings solely on the grounds that they were different from him. We should approach all people with understanding and kindness. If you really don’t want to be like Hitler, that would be a great place to start. ---
**Author:** ![humanafterall](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/humanafterall/32/19654_2.png) [@humanafterall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/humanafterall)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2010, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/149 "2010-12-09T04:30:54Z")
> [@qazwart](#): > > When I was growing up, I was an Atheist. I grew up in the Bible Belt and hated the self righteous smirkiness of many of the Southern Baptists around me. I hated the deception used for religious gain. I hated being picked upon for being different. If this was religion, I wanted nothing to do with it. My religious revelation came when I entered college and joined the Skeptic Society. It was there I learned that you didn’t need God to be a self righteous jerk. You know, I believe in God, but I don’t bother arguing to prove Its existence to others, like atheists. I just say, “If you want to doubt the existence of God, go ahead.” And also, I treat my religion pretty much the same way I treat my penis, I don’t whip it out and wave it around in public, and I don’t shove it down anyone’s throat without their consent. I’m not a member of a church because I don’t want someone telling me what God wants me to do, that is something I’ll determine for myself, thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wade_A.Tisthammer)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2010, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/150 "2010-12-27T16:57:06Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Again, it puzzles me why one should accept the word of a militant Internet atheist who questions Jesus’ existence and often fails to cite his sources over a distinguished historian. > > It doesn’t mention the sources on that site, but I have come across some refs for historians that have doubts about _Table Talk_. > > The historian Ian Kershaw, considered by many one of the leading figures on Hitler, with many published biographies, said of table talk “the `table talk’ monologues of the last months (the so called `bunkergespräche’) of which no German text has ever been brought to light must be treated with due caution” That’s true of any historical document; it doesn’t imply that what Hitler said about Christianity should be rejected. Kershaw’s [wording in its context](http://books.google.com/books?id=nV-N10gyoFwC&pg=PR14#v=onepage&q&f=false) (which you omitted somewhat) is notable; he says that _even_ the table talk monologues should be treated with due caution, suggesting a level of reliability that is superior to other sources. > [@Mijin](#): > > Another example is this [paper](http://www.jstor.org/pss/1432747) by Richard Carrier. (Carrier is an atheist activist, but nonetheless he is also a respected historian and this is a peer-reviewed paper) A respected historian? I mentioned how he wasn’t so reputable in [post #110](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12989730&postcount=110) and explained why in [post #34](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12967377&postcount=34). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2010, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/151 "2010-12-27T19:09:56Z")
You cited a disagreement with another historian, that’s all. The intended genre of the Gospels is still an issue of considerable debate. ---
**Author:** ![Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wade_A.Tisthammer)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/152 "2010-12-27T19:16:34Z")
> [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](#): > > A respected historian? I mentioned how he wasn’t so reputable in [post #110](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12989730&postcount=110) and explained why in [post #34](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12967377&postcount=34). Another display of poor historical judgment when it comes to something that affects Richard Carrier’s anti-religious beliefs, [here](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html) he said, “I have to conclude it is at least somewhat more probable that Jesus didn’t exist than that he did.” This goes vastly against the grain of mainstream scholarship, not to mention [all the evidence for the Jewish carpenter’s existence](http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_summarycritique/crj_summarycritique.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wade_A.Tisthammer)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/153 "2010-12-27T19:26:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You cited a disagreement with another historian, that’s all. The intended genre of the Gospels is still an issue of considerable debate. On Internet forums, yes. Current consensus however has accepted that the intended genre is biography; the followers of Jesus really did intend to write what they believed happened. This doesn’t mean the gospels are _accurate_ of course, but the evidence is reasonably clear regarding the intentions I mentioned (see Luke 1:1-4 and John 21:24). See also [this blog entry](http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/10/scholarly-opinion-on-gospels-genre.html) which cites sources. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/154 "2010-12-27T20:31:18Z")
That isn’t true. I know what the consensuses are, believe me, and I know exactly what the evidence is. Carrier is definitely out of the norm in being a mythicist (which I am not, by the way), but he’s a fully credentialed historian with no reputation f discredit or dishonesty. Citing Gary Habermas doesn’t help your own credibility very much, by the way. Talk about somebody with an agenda. He’s an evangelical activist who believes in the Shroud of Turin, for cripe’s sake. ---
**Author:** ![Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wade_A.Tisthammer)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/155 "2010-12-27T20:54:11Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That isn’t true. I know what the consensuses are, believe me, and I know exactly what the evidence is. I gave you a link with cited sources, and I gave you evidence. Do you have a rebuttal that’s more than a flat denial and a statement that you know what the evidence is? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That isn’t true. I know what the consensuses are, believe me, and I know exactly what the evidence is. Carrier is definitely out of the norm in being a mythicist (which I am not, by the way), but he’s a fully credentialed historian with no reputation f discredit or dishonesty. I’m not questioning Carrier’s honesty, and I don’t know what you mean by “f discredit.” Whatever his credentials though, I quite don’t trust his judgment when he has an anti-Christian axe to grind considering the crackpot historical notions on Christianity that he’s put forward. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Citing Gary Habermas doesn’t help your own credibility very much, by the way. Talk about somebody with an agenda. He also cites his sources. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He’s an evangelical activist who believes in the Shroud of Turin, for cripe’s sake. But why is that bad? Recently there have been scientific articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals questioning the validity of the carbon dating. [ul] [li]R.N Rogers, “[Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin](http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF)”, Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, 2005, pp. 189–194[/li][li]S. Benford, J. Marino, “[Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud](http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford%20CO4-08.pdf)”, Chemistry Today, vol 26 n 4 / July–August 2008, p. 4-12[/li][/ul] I don’t pretend to know whether the Shroud is genuine myself, but as of late its authenticity is scientifically viable. The recent criticism I’ve seen (as of the above scientific publications) tends to be made by articles _not_ published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/156 "2010-12-27T21:01:16Z")
> [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](#): > > I’m not questioning Carrier’s honesty, and I don’t know what you mean by “f discredit.” Whatever his credentials though, I quite don’t trust his judgment when he has an anti-Christian axe to grind considering the crackpot historical notions on Christianity that he’s put forward. That should have said, “…no reputation OF discredit…” The fact that he is an atheist does not make him “anti-Christian.” That is a canard. > [@](#): > > He also cites his sources. So does Carrier, only Carrier doesn’t think the Gospels are journalistic sources. > [@](#): > > But why is that bad? Because it’s demonstrable, whack-job, bullshit woo. There are no creditable studies disputing the carbon dating (what there is, is whining about which part was sampled, and false allegations that samples were taken from a repaired patch, not from the original cloth. These claims are 100% spurious), despite all the tendentious, apologist articles typically presnted as “science,” and the dating is not the only thing that proves the Shroud a forgery anyway. Its “authenticity” is not remotely “viable,” and Shroud defenders are coterie of religionist frauds on a par with creationists. ---
**Author:** ![Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wade_A.Tisthammer)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/157 "2010-12-27T21:42:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > That should have said, “…no reputation OF discredit…” > > The fact that he is an atheist does not make him “anti-Christian.” If nothing else, it does in the sense that Richard Carrier believes Christianity is false; but he’s also taken considerable effort to argue against Christianity, e.g. the notable [debate between he and Christian philosopher William Lane Craig on the resurrection of Jesus](http://www.rfmedia.org/av/video/craig-vs-carrier-did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead-1/), and his book _[Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn’t Need a Miracle to Succeed](http://www.amazon.com/Not-Impossible-Faith-Christianity-ebook/dp/B003XVZC24/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=books&qid=1293485301&sr=8-1)_. As I said, I don’t trust Carrier’s historical judgment when he has an anti-Christian axe to grind considering the crackpot historical notions on Christianity that he’s put forward. With that, we seem to be left without a known reputable historian who rejects the validity of Hitler’s anti-Christian statements found in _Hitler’s Table Talk_. I notice you didn’t address the evidence of a consensus regarding the intended genre of the gospels (with [cited sources in this blog](http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/10/scholarly-opinion-on-gospels-genre.html)) or the easily verifiable evidence I gave (Luke 1:1-4 and John 21:24). Do you have a response? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Because it’s demonstrable, whack-job, bullshit woo. There are no creditable studies disputing the carbon dating (what there is, is whining about which part was sampled, and false allegations that samples were taken from a repaired patch, not from the original cloth. These claims are 100% spurious), despite all the tendentious, apologist articles typically presnted as “science,” and the dating is not the only thing that proves the Shroud a forgery anyway. Its “authenticity” is not remotely “viable,” and Shroud defenders are coterie of religionist frauds on a par with creationists. As I noted, we have recent studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals questioning the validity of the carbon dating (this is hardly on par with creationism!). So on what grounds do you claim that this is “100% spurious”? All articles I’ve seen rebutting this were those _not_ published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Can you point to any that were? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/158 "2010-12-27T21:59:09Z")
> [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](#): > > If nothing else, it does in the sense that Richard Carrier believes Christianity is false; but he’s also taken considerable effort to argue against Christianity, e.g. the notable [debate between he and Christian philosopher William Lane Craig on the resurrection of Jesus](http://www.rfmedia.org/av/video/craig-vs-carrier-did-jesus-rise-from-the-dead-1/), and his book _[Not the Impossible Faith: Why Christianity Didn’t Need a Miracle to Succeed](http://www.amazon.com/Not-Impossible-Faith-Christianity-ebook/dp/B003XVZC24/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=books&qid=1293485301&sr=8-1)_. As I said, I don’t trust Carrier’s historical judgment when he has an anti-Christian axe to grind considering the crackpot historical notions on Christianity that he’s put forward. You have not supported your conrention that he has an “anti-Christian axe to grind,” and he backs up his arguments with sources shows his reasoning. You don’t have to accept his reasoning, but you can’t just handwave him away by calling him “anti-Christian.” William Lane Craig is a joke, by the way. His resurrection defenses are child’s play to refute. > [@](#): > > I notice you didn’t address the evidence of a consensus regarding the intended genre of the gospels Because you didn’t provide any. You cited an apologist blog which cited another apologist. Labeling the Gospels as “biography” is nonsense, since that’s a genre that didn’t exist yet (at least not in the modern sense that they are expected to be factual). > [@](#): > > As I noted, we have recent studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals questioning the validity of the carbon dating (this is hardly on par with creationism!). What has been published is a hypothesis that the threads sampled for the tests were taken from unoriginal cloth. This hypothesis is not well supported, does not actually refute anything, and doesn’t much matter anyway because the dating is not the only reason we know the Shroud is a fake. ---
**Author:** ![Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@Wade\_A.Tisthammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wade_A.Tisthammer)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/159 "2010-12-27T22:47:43Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You have not supported your conrention that he has an “anti-Christian axe to grind,” and he backs up his arguments with sources shows his reasoning. You don’t have to accept his reasoning, but you can’t just handwave him away by calling him “anti-Christian.” Nothing to support my contention that he has an anti-Christian axe to grind? What about the fact that he believes Christianity is false and has devoted considerable effort to arguing against it? What about the crackpot historical beliefs he accepts regarding Christianity? [Richard Carrier apparently now believes](http://www.richardcarrier.info/SpiritualFAQ.html#ahistoricity) that it is “_very_ probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person.[emphasis his]” A great deal of Carrier’s claims are _not_ cited. He also seems a tad presumptuous, not believing something is genuine because another source doesn’t have it. In any case, I am not an historian, but given Carrier’s crackpot historical claims on Christianity, I don’t trust his historical judgment when he has an anti-Christian axe to grind, and I trust Trevor-Roper’s judgment over Carrier’s. If we had a historian more reputable than Carrier criticizing the alleged anti-Christian remarks by Hitler I’d reconsider my belief that the quotes are authentic, but if Carrier is the best (or only) historian anybody can source I remain skeptical. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I notice you didn’t address the evidence of a consensus regarding the intended genre of the gospels > > Because you didn’t provide any. I noticed you sliced off the quote that provided evidence regarding the intention (to report what they believed happened): Luke 1:1-4 and John 21:24. Don’t these provide some evidence that at least these two gospels were intended to provide factual information? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You cited an apologist blog which cited another apologist. There’s also Burridge, R. A. (2006). Gospels. In J. W. Rogerson & Judith M. Lieu (Eds) _The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies_. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 437 which is the citation for Wikipedia’s claim that “Gospels are a type of ancient biography is the consensus among scholars today.” > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > What has been published is a hypothesis that the threads sampled for the tests were taken from unoriginal cloth. This hypothesis is not well supported, does not actually refute anything, and doesn’t much matter anyway because the dating is not the only reason we know the Shroud is a fake. If the hypothesis is not well supported, why do we have several articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals arguing otherwise? On what grounds do you believe the hypothesis is not well supported? As I said earlier, all articles I’ve seen rebutting this were those not published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Can you point to any that were? ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096/160 "2010-12-28T17:31:29Z")
::: Moderator coughs gently ::: Look, guys, this is an interesting discussion and all, but it’s not really related to whether Hitler was a Christian, which is the ostensible topic of this thread. Can I suggest that one of your start a new thread on some of these side-topics (like the intent of the gospel writers or the Shroud of T? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-hitler-a-christian/555096.md?page=9)