I was objecting to the comment “There are also atheists on the Internet who argue that Jesus of Nazareth never existed (mainstream scholarship be damned)”, which you made.
The tone of “mainstream scholarship be damned” implies that such people are flying in the face of established facts. In reality, there’s rather a lot of speculation / extrapolation involved in trying to ascertain jesus’ existence.
It’s not like believing the earth is flat (mainstream physics be damned).
:smack: I mean mainstream science in the above post, not physics.
I said no such thing. I don’t disagree with that claim, but nevertheless… I’m not the one who said it.
Yes, there’s a lot of speculation, just as Dan Brown’s books fueled a lot of speculation about Jesus and Mary Magdalene. That doesn’t mean that this speculation is competent.
You cited four scholars who take the Jesus myth seriously. As I pointed out though, none of those scholars is an historian. The vast majority of writers who promote this theory (G.A. Wells, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, etc) are not historians. Richard Carrier has some historical credentials, but he’s in the extreme minority, and for reasons that Wade A. Tisthammer already gave, his arguments for this viewpoint are laughable.
Did Hitler ever go to church?
Apologies. I hadn’t noticed that I was debating with a different person that the one that started this tangent (this is why we need avatars on this site!).
Never after leaving home, which alone would suggest he took his catholicism lightly. I would imagine he had to attend Army services during his service — I’ve no idea what arrangements the Imperial German Army insisted on for spiritual welfare, but the British Army had ingenious devices for ensuring every soldier had some pastoral care, no matter what denomination the chap gave to escape attending church or chapel services — and state/army services as Chancellor.
My own guess would be that he didn’t care that much for organized religion without hating it as much as Mussolini, the atheist’s atheist, or Lenin — who to be frank, just hated everybody.
Which is not to say Hitler was unthinking or unspiritual — “That’s just what’s wrong, that we no longer understand the tragedy of things. If only everybody realized that the destruction of only one life cannot be vindicated, so many things would be different and better.” — simply that religion didn’t inspire him in any way.
As for RC doctrine, he was damned as a lapsed and irreconcilable catholic. Which reminds me unfortunately of an atheist who informed me that Hitler had a priest in the Bunker there to give him absolution before he topped himself.
Which at least proved they knew nothing of Hitler, of Roman Catholic Absolution, or of the Bunker.
“…ch’assolver non si può chi non si pente,
né pentere e volere insieme puossi
per la contradizion che nol consente”.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm From his own speeches, he showed his familiarity with the bible and the church.
Which, of course, is irrelevant to the topic at hand. After all, many atheists claim to be knowledgeable about the Bible and the Church. No rational person would argue that this makes them Christian believers.
Atheists usually reveal that they are atheists when they do so, however. Did Hitler ever call himself an atheist?
This is a rather interesting thing to figure, given that Hitler was not a Christian and that his policies had nothing to do with European Christianity. For example, Hitler ordered the extermination of all Jews, a sharp contrast to the long history of European Christians generally living peacefully side-by-side with Jews and often going to great lengths to protect them. And of course Hitler ordered the extermination of many Christians–see posts 9 and 11–so that doesn’t seem to fit very well with your claim that Hitler was the ultimate expression of European Christianity either. So, I’ll be very interested in seeing how you go about explaining and defending your claim that Hitler was the ultimate expression of European Christianity.
As an aside, it’s 2010-- can we all stop with casual declarations of Hitler’s insanity as the explanation of all things?
Do I think Hitler was insane? Sure, by my standards. Eventually, towards the end, perhaps by medical standards.
But his “insanity,” if that’s what it was, swept up an entire nation, devastated a continent, and exterminated millions. That’s a lot of people following someone we all casually declare was insane, ergo by extension, self-evidentally unsuitable for the educated and cultured to follow in his purposes. How brilliant we internet geniuses are!
We know Hitler was insane because we have the benefit of hindsight, and insight into his inner chambers afforded by biography and memoirs. The German people didn’t have that benefit, and were instead convinced and charmed by a master politician who deployed techniques that the world hadn’t seen before, or in such effective combinations. As others in this thread have noted, Hitler was a master at being an “empty vessel,” i.e. he told the German people what they wanted to hear, regardless of contradiction, and thus both German Christians and German atheists (and everyone in between) found something to cheer in the Nazi platform. Those who didn’t, enjoyed one-way trips to camp.
That’s why protestations about “this guy is the next Hitler!” are always ridiculous. There can never again be another Hitler, insofar as Hitler by association ruined the majority of techniques he used to gain and exploit power. Anyone that uses those techniques again is by default associating themselves with the memory of a madman, and that rarely garners support in most circles.
No, the next Hitler won’t be like Hitler at all. He (or she) will be just as evil, to be sure, but they’ll find new ways of doing old things that’ll make their subjects-- Christian, Muslim, animist, atheist-- believe it was their idea all along.
I don’t know and I don’t care, since I never claimed that he was.
My point – and I think this should be pretty obvious – was simply that gonzomax’s argument is irrelevant. Knowledge of the Bible and the Church does not make someone a Christian; ergo, the fact that Hitler knew something about such things does not make him a believer. After all, even atheists will often claim to be well-versed on these topics.
Obviously, that’s not the same thing as calling him an atheist. So while your question is an interesting one, it has nothing to do with the point that I raised.
I’m not…quite…sure what you’re point is, but if you’re implying that “He couldn’t be that crazy, look how many followers he had”, I think you have a misconception.
The qualities that people look for in a leader are often irrational: always knowing what to do, never showing self doubt etc.
Cult leaders can be excellent at recruiting loyal followers, yet patently insane at the same time.
And that’s in addition to the fact that once someone is in power they can subvert public opinion through propaganda and restrictions on open discussion.
Let’s see. You started out in this thread by quoting from “The Church of Theists Suck”, which according to you was proof that Hitler was a Christian. I challenged you to defend that, and apparently you aren’t going to. Now you’re going on to “nobeliefs.com”, which I guess is slight improvement, but not much. For instance they have a page of photos of Hitler and other prominent Nazis standing in front of churches or next to somebody wearing a cross, etc… How, exactly, is that supposed to prove that these people were Christians. Does a photo of George Bush holding hands with Prince Abdullah prove that Bush is a Muslim? If not, why link to a web page that relies on those kinds of arguments? In any case, even if I accepted everything on that page as true, I see nothing justifying your claim that Hitlered “showed familiarity with the Bible”. In fact, many of the quotes on that page show Hitler’s negative attitude towards Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular.
“The hard struggle which the Pan-Germans fought with the Catholic Church can be accounted for only by their insufficient understanding of the spiritual nature of the people.”
“Protestantism … combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established.”
Perhaps next time you should read a web page before you link to it.
Oh , a photo. that proves what? The proof is his frequent use of bible scripture in defending his policies. Even his attitude toward the Jews was explained with biblical reference to Jesus kicking the money lenders out of the church. That again indicates he read and followed the bible.
Does Benladen offer biblical references for his hatred? Nope, he quotes the Islamic texts because he is not Christian.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm Biblical references and his calling himself a Xian in speeches.
I understand if the truth makes you uncomfortable.
So are you asserting that politicians never lie in their speeches or make false claims?
Wow! So his writing and speeches are just tossed away because of your discomfort. Sure is easy when you do that. You have blithely eliminated all proof from consideration. I suppose facing the truth is difficult.
The Vatican Concordat With Hitler's Reich: The Concordat of 1933 was ambiguous in its day and remains so. Hitler proceeded with Vatican approval. Therefore the question might be, was the Church, and the Vatican Nazi sympathizers?