Great staff report. Odd, though, that it doesn’t explicitly refer to Godwin’s Law in the next-to-last paragraph: Godwin's law - Wikipedia
I agree with Malthus’s take on the question of Hitler’s Christianity.
To my mind, one of the stranger aspects of the Nazi regime was its apparent tolerance for completely contradictory points of view on certain topics. This, plus their habitual deception and doubletalk, makes it very difficult to say what “the Nazis” thought about many things. It is difficult to get a straight answer on many of their future plans because, in some cases, no straight answer exists - even on the big issues.
For example - what were their plans for their eastern conquests? They seemed to pursue mutually incompatible ones.
Why expect them to be anything but what they were – insane?
Well, insane or not, the image I at least had of the Nazis was one where they were all more or less told what to think by their leader, and all more or less officially believed the same stuff.
Well, it’s been discussed pretty thoroughly above, but I was looking for an official stance, if one existed. I’d take either angle if anyone had something to add.
The angle I’m coming from (admittedly this is something I’ve encountered in previous discussions, I’m not accusing anyone here of doing this) is that I’m irritated when people assert the Nazis weren’t Christian because they didn’t act in accordance with some version of Christian principles the speaker espouses are the orrect ones.
Since I can’t know what’s really in anyone’s heart, I have to take at face value anyone claiming to be Christian.
And since persons, organizations, churches, and nation-states claiming to be Christian have accepted widely varying interpretations of “Christian principles,” it’s either error or sophistry to assert that one is or isn’t meeting some objective standard.
To cherry-pick an example, US Southern Presbyterians at one time preached that racial slavery was ordained by God. It would be silly to say they “weren’t Christian,” because they claimed to be, had a history of being regarded as Christian, and their contemporaries largely accepted these claims.
So if the Nazis claimed to be Christians officially, I’d be prepared to accept that they were. But from the above, it looks like they weren’t really staking out such a claim formally.
I think what you are getting at is the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. As in, ‘Nazis were not true Christians, because - hey, they were massively evil’.
I figure Hitler was the ultimate expression of European Christianity, at least in its well-established regard to other faiths.
Oddly enough, the Nazis were pretty tolerant of traditional “enemy of european” religions - for example, Hitler was buds with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Because it served his purposes in the short term.
Possibly off-topic, but since the claim “Hitler was an atheist” is often made, it should be pointed out that while there are some anti-christian quotes attributed to hitler, I’ve never heard any atheist ones.
Atheist is not the same thing as anti-christian.
There are prominent scholars and professors of theology that come down on the side of “myth”. Point being; it’s debatable.
It’s not an interllectually dishonest position to doubt jesus’ existence, it depends on the reasoning that led those web sources you’ve encountered to hold that position.
Such as…? Can you name them and cite their credentials?
And yes, I am going somewhere with this question.
I think that’s debatable.
I’m a vegetarian (well, vegan) and I get really tired of people using Hitler as a justification for eating meat. As you said, OP, Hitler was not a vegetarian but even if he were so what? Hitler had a nose, it doesn’t mean you should cut yours off. Vegetarianism is better because it spares animals great suffering and abuse that they must endure on factory farms. It has nothing to do with Hitler being or not being a vegetarian.
Similarly I think being Christian or not should not be dependent on whether or not Hitler was for or against Christianity.
Gad, if only you’d made this point yesterday, I wouldn’t have wasted all that time in the emergency room.
The main source over the “controversy” Wikipedia cites regarding the anti-Christian sections is Richard Carrier, who isn’t the most reputable historian. In a debate over Jesus’ resurrection for example, Carrier presented crackpot scholarship against the Christian opponent to “refute” him. But don’t take my word for it: part 1 of the debate can be found here (see for example 37:14 to 37:22 where Carrier says the early Christian writers who wrote the Gospels were writing symbolic fiction as opposed to writing what they believed to be true; at 48:08 Carrier’s opponent points out that mainstream scholarship accepts that the Gospels fit the genre of “historical biography” i.e. the writers were writing what they believed to be true) and if you want, you can see part 2 here. Just as some Christians are gullible enough to accept the claims of young-earth creationism (at least partly) because it favors their belief system, so too are there some gullible atheists who accept crank historical theories that favor their beliefs, e.g. the belief that Jesus never existed, despite the fact that nearly all historians, Christian or not, accept that Jesus existed
(source: Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii).
Was Hitler a Christian? To answer this we must define what a true Christian is, which is a follower of Christ. Let me quote Jesus, who would be an expert on the subject.
“Enter ye in by the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many are they that enter in thereby.
For narrow is the gate, and straitened the way, that leadeth unto life, and few are they that find it.
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
By their fruits ye shall know them. Do [men] gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:13-23
I believe there can be only one answer to Hitler being a Christian and that is absolutely not, BUT by Jesus’s own words, most people professing to be Christians aren’t either.
Well the regime didn’t have a coherent planned ideology, unlike marxist-leninism, which was messy and muddled and frequently cobbled together on the fly yet was always capable of a sustained definite answer to any situation ( usually by asking whomever had seized the topmost rank, such as Lenin or Stalin — if you had previously decided upon the wrong answer instead very bad things happened — or the chief theologians, such as Suslov ). The nazis ranged from those who had merely signed up for the fairly reasonable 22 points manifesto back in the time it applied — early 1920s — to nationalists, to nutballs, to meritocratic technocrats who planned the future.
Added to which the top nazis were intellectuals with high IQs who mostly were not that efficient. They didn’t feel the need to have an opinion on everything, unlike communists or liberals; let alone a preformed one.
Possibly part of Hitler’s master plan, which overtly was to permit the social darwinist rivalry of competing and incompatible state ideas ( whether ministries or satrapies ) in the touching belief that the best would win; but which was probably just his legendary laziness ( in peacetime ) added to a hope that luck would see them through.
Which other faiths would be, um, Islam, admired by Hitler ? Buddhism, that inspired Magda Goebbels from youth ? Hinduism, followed by Hommler ? Atheism, the creed of Bormann ?
The only other faith I can think of apart than Judaism ( which is mainly restricted by birth ) is Wicthcraft, which they certainly persecuted; on the other hand they persecuted any random grouping of people, mostly because they feared any assembly from freemasons to vegetarians — not because of beliefs, which they couldn’t care less about, but because of competing association…
Kenneth Grayston – Cambridge-educated professor of theology and methodist minister.
Thomas L. Thompson – Professor of theology at the university of copenhagen.
Robert McNair Price – Professor of theology, scriptural studies and biblical criticism and new testament scholar.
Rudolf Bultmann – Professor of theology, again, and new testament scholar. Again.
Let’s not go anywhere with this, as it’s off-topic.
Absolutely. But point is that religion simply wasn’t a particularly Nazi preoccupation - they were willing to tolerate diversity exactly as long as it suited them (with the notable exception of Judaism, of course - and other specifically disfavoured groups).
I suspect Hitler mostly saw traditional religions as quant - something to be crushed certainly if it opposed him, but supported otherwise as part of traditional national culture (until it could be replaced by purely Nazi symbolism).
This is a point that bears emphasis. Part of Hitler’s strategy appears to have been to encourage rivalries among his subordinates - part I suppose because of social-darwinism “survival of the fittest”, and part I suspect as a deliberate strategy to ensure that none of his subordinates had power sufficient to really threaten his own position.
Liberal theology professors, each and every one. Note that not a single one of these people is a historian. Price is admittedly a member of the Jesus Seminar, but none of his degrees are in history, and it shows.
Hey, you’re the one who insisted that “There are prominent scholars and professors of theology that come down on the side of ‘myth’.” If you really think that it is off-topic, then you shouldn’t have brought it up.