Defining Hitler Into Being Christian
This is a reprint of the last chapter of my ebook Hitler's Christianity. In it I address claims that in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, Hitler should still be reckoned a Christian because...well, because!!
***
In spite of all the information we have presented in this volume, and the twisted nature of Hitler's Positive Christian beliefs, and of the Nazi persecution of mainstream churches, and in spite of the attempted destruction of European Jewry, there are critics who will nevertheless insist that this is insufficient to disqualify Hitler (or any Nazi figure) as a Christian. We will now consider a collection of objections designed to argue this point, although ineffectively.
The Self-Profession Argument
The first objection has been formulated by one online atheist source as follows:
The basic problem (for religious folks) is that Hitler said he was a Christian, and God apparently didn't feel the need to disagree in public.
We may disregard the rather childish supposition that God is in some way obliged to think on our behalf, and save us the trouble of critical discernment when it comes to the religious professions of others. The key argument in this statement is that: Hitler was a Christian, because he said he was one. In the same way, referring to theologians like Kittel who accepted Nazi doctrine, Ericksen says: "Their self-definition as believing Christians cannot be doubted." He notes other signals of their religious allegiance: A professed personal meeting with Christ; being asked to preach; practicing piety, and regular Bible reading and prayer. [1]
A more sophisticated variation of this argument can be found even in the otherwise excellent historical work of Steigmann-Gall, who points out that "many Christians of the day believed Nazism to be in some sense a Christian movement." He further states that "only false-consciousness theory allows us to contend that millions of sincere Christians could create a non-Christian movement." And, finally, he adds that proponents of Positive Christianity "maintained that their anti-Semitism and socialism were derived from a Christian understanding of Germany's ills and their cure." [2] Though written in more formal terms, the argument is little different in substance than that of the former atheist website; namely, a self-profession and self-conception is sufficient to objectively classify one's self as a Christian.
We may immediately note that this argument sets a rather low bar of evidence for how one may be defined as a Christian. If simple self-profession and self-conception is all that is required to define one's personal identity, without any reference to objective criteria, then there is little to stop even a hardened atheist from referring to themselves as a Christian.
This is not so outlandish a proposition as one might suppose. Among the wide variety of movements on the market today is one that terms itself "Christian atheism." The sum of this view is that, while Jesus is not God, and God does not exist, the moral teachings of Jesus are superior and ought to be followed.
The designation of "Christian atheism" leads to a salient point. As we have noted in prior chapters, cults or deviant movements are frequently posed as, "Christianity plus," or, perhaps "Christianity minus," with the implication that the differences make the variation purer than, or superior to, mainstream Christianity. Can we accept that when a person or group adds a term (or beliefs) to differentiate themselves from another group, that this might place them outside the defining bounds of that other group?
Indeed, the extra designation exposes a key problem with the "self-profession" argument. The critic is intent upon resting in the broad definition of "Christian" as defining a group or body of persons which would include Hitler. One critic put it this way: "A Christian is simply a person who believes in God and Jesus in some form or manner." Needless to say, such a broad designation is difficult to defend. [3]
But let us grant for the sake of argument that Hitler and his associates added the designation "Positive," to define themselves separately from other persons designated as "Christian." The critic argues that Hitler was a Christian in order to suggest that persons in the category of "Christian" are somehow immoral, dangerous, or could be responsible for the sort of evils Hitler perpetrated. But why then use the broader designation of "Christian" rather than the more specific designation of, "Positive Christian?" Why not say, as we all will agree, that it is "Positive Christianity" specifically that leads to immorality in its adherents?
The "Variety of Christianity" Argument
The above offers a segue into the second form of objection, which is that Hitler's Positive Christianity was simply another "variety" of Christianity. One atheist critic put it this way:
There can be little doubt that Hitler was a Christian. You really don't get to disqualify Hitler's beliefs just because you believe a different version.
And, yet another atheist critic said:
The trouble is, there are thousands and thousands of different groups out there and they all claim to be Christians. Isn't it just a little bit arrogant to say that a Jehovah's Witness, a Mormon or a Roman Catholic is not a true Christian, especially since they might well say the same about you? Since as far as I can see there is no way of being able to decide who is and who is not a Christian Adolf Hitler's claim to be one is as good as yours.
Steigmann-Gall again provides a more sophisticated form of the argument: "[T]he Nazis represented a departure from previous Christian practices. However, this did not make them un-Christian." [4]
As with the first objection, however, the critic is refusing to consider objective criteria, and is instead making an emotional appeal to the sensitivities of those who are designated as not Christian. It is at this stage that we must now show that objective criteria are the only basis whereby a person's religious identity can rightly, and must be defined. To illustrate this, I have created what I term the Patriot Analogy.
As one may ask, "Who is really a Christian?" it is also possible to ask "Who is a loyal, patriotic American?" (Of course, the reader may substitute any national or political designation for "American.") Would it be someone who:
Displays a flag?
Is willing to join the military (or other organization) to
serve the country? Or, to serve the country in other ways outside an
organization?
Knows the contents of the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence?
Knows the laws of America?
Arguably, these are all things (though not the only things) one can
or must do to be called a Patriot. Yet of course, the absence of these
things does not cause us to say someone is not a Patriot. At a minimum
we suggest they must love their country. Yet if they do none of these
things, or are unwilling to do them, or refuse to do them, what do we
say? Is it evident that they do love their country as they profess? They
may be:
A real patriot, but not an active one; or,
A patriot who takes issue with some of the claims of the
country upon them, but still loves the country and adheres to the core
values of the nation; or,
A "wolf in sheep's clothing" pretending to be a Patriot, for whatever reason (i.e., like friendship, etc.)
By now one can guess that this is analogical to the question, "Who is
a true Christian?" Let's rework some of the questions above. Who
qualifies as a real Christian? Someone who:
Displays a cross or a Christian T-shirt?
Is willing to join the church (or other organization) to serve
the body of Christ? Or, to serve the body in other ways outside an
organization?
Knows the contents of the Bible?
Follows the precepts of the Bible?
Arguably, these are all things (though not the only things) one can
or must do to rightly be called a Christian. So in light of the above,
does the absence of these things not cause us to say someone is not a
Christian?
At a minimum we suggest they must love God, and Jesus. Yet if
they do none of these things, or are unwilling to do them, or refuse to
do them, what do we say? Is it evident that they do love their God as
they profess? They may be:
A real Christian, but not an active one; or,
A Christian who rejects some part of the Bible's teachings, but still adheres to the core principles of the faith; or,
A "wolf in sheep's clothing" pretending to be a Christian, for whatever reason (i.e., like friendship, etc.)
Of course, there is another issue: What about someone who is a member
of a cultic group (like the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses) who
qualifies on all counts for the list above? In that case, the question
turns not just upon, for example, whether they follow the Bible, but it
also follows upon whether they do so accurately. Ericksen pointed out
that professed Christians as Kittel performed actions in accord with
that profession (e.g., Bible reading and prayer). This adds a step to
the argument, but is no more definitive. These actions are expressions
of devotion to a specific doctrine, but if the doctrine is a false one,
those actions may as well be directed to a brick wall.
If someone claimed adherence to the Constitution, but professed
to somehow read out of it a model for a dictatorship (!), wouldn’t we
rightly wonder of their ability to be defined as a “patriotic American?"
Certainly, the more selective a person is with beliefs, the less likely
it is that they can satisfy the definition of "patriot" to a given
cause.
Now, let us turn this back to the issue of Hitler's religious beliefs. Is it really impossible to wedge Hitler or anyone else into the fold at our convenience, just because they say "I am a Christian?" To do so, one must show that Hitler was at the very least loyal to Christian principles, otherwise, the claim is unreasonable. To illustrate the folly of the critics, can you imagine a conversation like this being seriously pursued?
Skeptic: "Osama bin Laden is a patriotic American!"
Christian: "What?"
Skeptic: "He said in one of his own speeches he was!"
Christian: "Anyone can call themselves a patriotic American, but that doesn't make them one."
Skeptic: "Oh yeah? How can you judge who is a patriotic American?"
Of course, it is always possible that some flag-waving,
Bill-of-Rights-quoting person out there is really some sort of false
patriot, a terrorist in disguise plotting to blow up something, but we
recognize that such people are the exception rather than the rule.
Nevertheless, consider the absurdity of designating, as an American
patriot, someone who, in parallel to the major deviations of Positive
Christianity:
Declares that we should ignore half of the Constitution, including more than half of the Amendments;
Claims that George Washington was actually a Communist;
Believes that we should ignore the nation's laws and just concentrate on activities like having Fourth of July picnics.
How much credence would we give to someone who advertised this as “Positive Patriotism?”
There is one final point, which shows that this objection can
also backfire. One frequent argument of Christian apologists is that
Hitler was inspired by the teachings of Darwinism. We will not here
pursue the accuracy of that claim, but it is rather instructive to
consider one Skeptic's response to this argument:
...what reached Germany was not the English version of Origin of Species, it was a translation by German paleontologist Heinrich Georg Bronn that was a main source of German notions of Darwinian evolution, and those notions were a distortion of Darwin’s views. Bronn had a substantially different conception of evolution than Darwin, and Bronn’s translation apparently incorporated a good bit of his own conception rather than being a straight translation of Darwin. Bronn even added an extra chapter to OoS to incorporate his own ideas. [5]
Using the same logic of critics, however, can we not say that Bronn's "distortions" are merely another "variety" of Darwinian teachings? The critics who use the "variety of Christianity" argument end up cutting off their nose to spite their face.
The Flattened Criteria Argument
Once a critic is compelled to consider objective criteria as a way to define who is a Christian, an attempt may be made to flatten the criteria by classifying Hitler's Positive Christianity variation as somehow comparable to the mainstream. In this regard, the critical issue is whether the key variations of Positive Christianity -- a bowdlerized canon, a dejudaized Jesus, and a hypertrophied orthopraxy -- are sufficient to divorce it from mainstream, orthodox Christianity. The matter is somewhat tendentiously summed up by one critic as follows:
Hitler was no more anti-Christian than your run-of-the-mill Protestant bigot. His Christianity was odd, surely, but so is that of many die-hard believers today.
Concerning the canon of Positive Christianity, Steigmann-Gall, though he admits that Hitler's conception of Christianity "contained a good deal that was far from orthodox," [6] says that the criterion of canonicity "do[es] not constitute a reliable gauge, as others whose Christian credentials are undisputed would similarly fail to pass." [7] Unfortunately, Steigmann-Gall does not say to whom he refers in this context, only vaguely saying that “the rejection of the Old Testament in fact found expression within bona fide varieties of Protestantism." [8] But what were the "bona fide varieties?" Steigmann-Gall does not explain, so no answer can be directly made. Why would it not be argued in reply that the "varieties" Steigmann-Gall has in mind are not "bona fide" at all? And why would this not especially be the case for Positive Christianity followers, whose radical surgery on the canon involved discarding some 80 to 90 percent of it?
What about the doctrine of a dejudaized Jesus? As we noted earlier, one critic has pointed out that the Aryan Jesus of Positive Christianity has parallels in mainstream views that depict Jesus as a blond, blue-eyed Anglo-Saxon. But this is an inapt comparison. Mainstream depictions of Jesus in this fashion come of a mistaken idea that all Jews of the first century were white Anglo-Saxons. In other words, it is not the result of an active racism, as was the case with Positive Christianity, but rather, the result of simple ignorance. At the same time, if we ignore questions of Jesus' fundamental identity, and say that someone who "follows Jesus" counts as a Christian, we are left to admit into the Christian fold all manner of outlandish deviations. As noted earlier in this volume, one of my "favorite" books as an apologist is titled The Elvis-Jesus Mystery, by Cinda Godfrey. This amazing volume declares that Elvis Presley was the Messiah, and as the title indicates, makes a direct connection between the fundamental identities of Elvis and Jesus. If we follow the logic of such types of critics to its proper conclusion, even Godfrey must be admitted to be a Christian!
It is true that even early Christianity was subject to a certain amount of diversity. Nevertheless, it must also be apparent that diversity has its limits. Critics naturally have no desire to place limits on the acceptable limit of diversity within Christianity, but if they fail to do so, they risk making the definition of "Christian" so broad that it has no meaning at all.
Steigmann-Gall writes, "By detaching Christianity from the crimes of its adherents, we create a Christianity above history, a Christianity whose teachings need not ultimately be investigated. Seen in this light, those who have committed such acts must have misunderstood Christianity, or worse yet purposefully misused it for their own ends. 'Real Christians' do not commit such crimes." [9] But this is not a matter of detaching Christianity from the crimes of its adherents. This is a matter of whether, indeed, the alleged adherents have, in fact, misunderstood, distorted or misrepresented Christianity, according to a set of objective criteria, and not their crimes. In the final analysis, the critics simply do not do enough analysis to answer this question.
Notes
[1] Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler, 39.
[2] Steigmann-Gall, Holy Reich, 5, 6, 10.
[3] A distinction should be made, though, between defining "Christian" in historical and theological terms, and defining it in strictly anthropological terms. Social scientists with no concern for theology may define a wide variety of groups as "Christian" using the same broad definition as the critic, with no intention to besmirch the Christian belief. Of course, the critic may try to shift the goalposts by arguing that Hitler was anthropologically a Christian, when whether he was theologically a Christian is far more meaningful in terms of their argumentative goals.
[4] Steigmann-Gall, Holy Reich, 262.
[5] Accessed August 10, 2013.
[6] Steigmann-Gall, Holy Reich, 37.
[7] Ibid., 6.
[8] Ibid., 11.
[9] Ibid., 267.
***
In spite of all the information we have presented in this volume, and the twisted nature of Hitler's Positive Christian beliefs, and of the Nazi persecution of mainstream churches, and in spite of the attempted destruction of European Jewry, there are critics who will nevertheless insist that this is insufficient to disqualify Hitler (or any Nazi figure) as a Christian. We will now consider a collection of objections designed to argue this point, although ineffectively.
The Self-Profession Argument
The first objection has been formulated by one online atheist source as follows:
The basic problem (for religious folks) is that Hitler said he was a Christian, and God apparently didn't feel the need to disagree in public.
We may disregard the rather childish supposition that God is in some way obliged to think on our behalf, and save us the trouble of critical discernment when it comes to the religious professions of others. The key argument in this statement is that: Hitler was a Christian, because he said he was one. In the same way, referring to theologians like Kittel who accepted Nazi doctrine, Ericksen says: "Their self-definition as believing Christians cannot be doubted." He notes other signals of their religious allegiance: A professed personal meeting with Christ; being asked to preach; practicing piety, and regular Bible reading and prayer. [1]
A more sophisticated variation of this argument can be found even in the otherwise excellent historical work of Steigmann-Gall, who points out that "many Christians of the day believed Nazism to be in some sense a Christian movement." He further states that "only false-consciousness theory allows us to contend that millions of sincere Christians could create a non-Christian movement." And, finally, he adds that proponents of Positive Christianity "maintained that their anti-Semitism and socialism were derived from a Christian understanding of Germany's ills and their cure." [2] Though written in more formal terms, the argument is little different in substance than that of the former atheist website; namely, a self-profession and self-conception is sufficient to objectively classify one's self as a Christian.
We may immediately note that this argument sets a rather low bar of evidence for how one may be defined as a Christian. If simple self-profession and self-conception is all that is required to define one's personal identity, without any reference to objective criteria, then there is little to stop even a hardened atheist from referring to themselves as a Christian.
This is not so outlandish a proposition as one might suppose. Among the wide variety of movements on the market today is one that terms itself "Christian atheism." The sum of this view is that, while Jesus is not God, and God does not exist, the moral teachings of Jesus are superior and ought to be followed.
The designation of "Christian atheism" leads to a salient point. As we have noted in prior chapters, cults or deviant movements are frequently posed as, "Christianity plus," or, perhaps "Christianity minus," with the implication that the differences make the variation purer than, or superior to, mainstream Christianity. Can we accept that when a person or group adds a term (or beliefs) to differentiate themselves from another group, that this might place them outside the defining bounds of that other group?
Indeed, the extra designation exposes a key problem with the "self-profession" argument. The critic is intent upon resting in the broad definition of "Christian" as defining a group or body of persons which would include Hitler. One critic put it this way: "A Christian is simply a person who believes in God and Jesus in some form or manner." Needless to say, such a broad designation is difficult to defend. [3]
But let us grant for the sake of argument that Hitler and his associates added the designation "Positive," to define themselves separately from other persons designated as "Christian." The critic argues that Hitler was a Christian in order to suggest that persons in the category of "Christian" are somehow immoral, dangerous, or could be responsible for the sort of evils Hitler perpetrated. But why then use the broader designation of "Christian" rather than the more specific designation of, "Positive Christian?" Why not say, as we all will agree, that it is "Positive Christianity" specifically that leads to immorality in its adherents?
The "Variety of Christianity" Argument
The above offers a segue into the second form of objection, which is that Hitler's Positive Christianity was simply another "variety" of Christianity. One atheist critic put it this way:
There can be little doubt that Hitler was a Christian. You really don't get to disqualify Hitler's beliefs just because you believe a different version.
And, yet another atheist critic said:
The trouble is, there are thousands and thousands of different groups out there and they all claim to be Christians. Isn't it just a little bit arrogant to say that a Jehovah's Witness, a Mormon or a Roman Catholic is not a true Christian, especially since they might well say the same about you? Since as far as I can see there is no way of being able to decide who is and who is not a Christian Adolf Hitler's claim to be one is as good as yours.
Steigmann-Gall again provides a more sophisticated form of the argument: "[T]he Nazis represented a departure from previous Christian practices. However, this did not make them un-Christian." [4]
As with the first objection, however, the critic is refusing to consider objective criteria, and is instead making an emotional appeal to the sensitivities of those who are designated as not Christian. It is at this stage that we must now show that objective criteria are the only basis whereby a person's religious identity can rightly, and must be defined. To illustrate this, I have created what I term the Patriot Analogy.
As one may ask, "Who is really a Christian?" it is also possible to ask "Who is a loyal, patriotic American?" (Of course, the reader may substitute any national or political designation for "American.") Would it be someone who:
Now, let us turn this back to the issue of Hitler's religious beliefs. Is it really impossible to wedge Hitler or anyone else into the fold at our convenience, just because they say "I am a Christian?" To do so, one must show that Hitler was at the very least loyal to Christian principles, otherwise, the claim is unreasonable. To illustrate the folly of the critics, can you imagine a conversation like this being seriously pursued?
...what reached Germany was not the English version of Origin of Species, it was a translation by German paleontologist Heinrich Georg Bronn that was a main source of German notions of Darwinian evolution, and those notions were a distortion of Darwin’s views. Bronn had a substantially different conception of evolution than Darwin, and Bronn’s translation apparently incorporated a good bit of his own conception rather than being a straight translation of Darwin. Bronn even added an extra chapter to OoS to incorporate his own ideas. [5]
Using the same logic of critics, however, can we not say that Bronn's "distortions" are merely another "variety" of Darwinian teachings? The critics who use the "variety of Christianity" argument end up cutting off their nose to spite their face.
The Flattened Criteria Argument
Once a critic is compelled to consider objective criteria as a way to define who is a Christian, an attempt may be made to flatten the criteria by classifying Hitler's Positive Christianity variation as somehow comparable to the mainstream. In this regard, the critical issue is whether the key variations of Positive Christianity -- a bowdlerized canon, a dejudaized Jesus, and a hypertrophied orthopraxy -- are sufficient to divorce it from mainstream, orthodox Christianity. The matter is somewhat tendentiously summed up by one critic as follows:
Hitler was no more anti-Christian than your run-of-the-mill Protestant bigot. His Christianity was odd, surely, but so is that of many die-hard believers today.
Concerning the canon of Positive Christianity, Steigmann-Gall, though he admits that Hitler's conception of Christianity "contained a good deal that was far from orthodox," [6] says that the criterion of canonicity "do[es] not constitute a reliable gauge, as others whose Christian credentials are undisputed would similarly fail to pass." [7] Unfortunately, Steigmann-Gall does not say to whom he refers in this context, only vaguely saying that “the rejection of the Old Testament in fact found expression within bona fide varieties of Protestantism." [8] But what were the "bona fide varieties?" Steigmann-Gall does not explain, so no answer can be directly made. Why would it not be argued in reply that the "varieties" Steigmann-Gall has in mind are not "bona fide" at all? And why would this not especially be the case for Positive Christianity followers, whose radical surgery on the canon involved discarding some 80 to 90 percent of it?
What about the doctrine of a dejudaized Jesus? As we noted earlier, one critic has pointed out that the Aryan Jesus of Positive Christianity has parallels in mainstream views that depict Jesus as a blond, blue-eyed Anglo-Saxon. But this is an inapt comparison. Mainstream depictions of Jesus in this fashion come of a mistaken idea that all Jews of the first century were white Anglo-Saxons. In other words, it is not the result of an active racism, as was the case with Positive Christianity, but rather, the result of simple ignorance. At the same time, if we ignore questions of Jesus' fundamental identity, and say that someone who "follows Jesus" counts as a Christian, we are left to admit into the Christian fold all manner of outlandish deviations. As noted earlier in this volume, one of my "favorite" books as an apologist is titled The Elvis-Jesus Mystery, by Cinda Godfrey. This amazing volume declares that Elvis Presley was the Messiah, and as the title indicates, makes a direct connection between the fundamental identities of Elvis and Jesus. If we follow the logic of such types of critics to its proper conclusion, even Godfrey must be admitted to be a Christian!
It is true that even early Christianity was subject to a certain amount of diversity. Nevertheless, it must also be apparent that diversity has its limits. Critics naturally have no desire to place limits on the acceptable limit of diversity within Christianity, but if they fail to do so, they risk making the definition of "Christian" so broad that it has no meaning at all.
Steigmann-Gall writes, "By detaching Christianity from the crimes of its adherents, we create a Christianity above history, a Christianity whose teachings need not ultimately be investigated. Seen in this light, those who have committed such acts must have misunderstood Christianity, or worse yet purposefully misused it for their own ends. 'Real Christians' do not commit such crimes." [9] But this is not a matter of detaching Christianity from the crimes of its adherents. This is a matter of whether, indeed, the alleged adherents have, in fact, misunderstood, distorted or misrepresented Christianity, according to a set of objective criteria, and not their crimes. In the final analysis, the critics simply do not do enough analysis to answer this question.
Notes
[1] Ericksen, Theologians Under Hitler, 39.
[2] Steigmann-Gall, Holy Reich, 5, 6, 10.
[3] A distinction should be made, though, between defining "Christian" in historical and theological terms, and defining it in strictly anthropological terms. Social scientists with no concern for theology may define a wide variety of groups as "Christian" using the same broad definition as the critic, with no intention to besmirch the Christian belief. Of course, the critic may try to shift the goalposts by arguing that Hitler was anthropologically a Christian, when whether he was theologically a Christian is far more meaningful in terms of their argumentative goals.
[4] Steigmann-Gall, Holy Reich, 262.
[5]
[6] Steigmann-Gall, Holy Reich, 37.
[7] Ibid., 6.
[8] Ibid., 11.
[9] Ibid., 267.
Comments
I will take this post seriously when Holding berates Christians for that as well.
Pixie
I will take this post seriously when Holding berates Christians for that as well.
Pixie
I have never heard that, far more common to find atheists saying Hitler is a christian and using that to argue that religion leads to Nazism,that's why Holding is talking about it to answer the atheist guilt by association argument,
The philosophical underpinnings of Nazism go back prior to Hitler. It is fundamentally Christian, as you can see here. Of course, most Christians today take the "no true Scotsman" view, but there is no denying that this ideology came from Christian beliefs in the first place, and always professed to be Christian.
no not in any sense,your stupid assertion backs what I told pixie atheists make these dumb guilt by association arguments trying to indict Christianity with Hitler,yoy knowless about history than you do social sciences,
I am denying it you don't Kongo what you are talking about, you dont know what no true Scotsman is, most atheists use that stupidly,
here
You OBVIOUSLY didn't read the article I pointed out. It VERY CLEARLY shows the CHRISTIAN ORIGINS of Nazi ideology.
And with regard to evolution, Nazi ideology was CREATIONIST.
That's a laugh. You should read your bible, because THAT's where it all comes from.
I'll take the Pixie seriously after his third birthday.
Typical fake history garbage. Show it from a credentialed scholarly source or don't bother.
Why don't you bother to read the material I present? Or are you just blind to anything that disputes your ideology?
There are no authentic Christian teachings that are anti semetic
That's a laugh. You should read your bible, because THAT's where it all comes from.
bible is werotten by Jews dumb ass. There are only one one non Jewish author in the whole collection
Typical fake history garbage. Show it from a credentialed scholarly source or don't bother.
Why don't you bother to read the material I present? Or are you just blind to anything that disputes your ideology?
you are not a scholar and I am
a statmemt from your soiurce:
"The German people during the Third Reich were overwhelmingly Christian, with among the highest church-attendance rates in Europe. In a 1939 Census 94% declared themselves Christian. Nearly all of those involved in the Holocaust regarded themselves as Christian; the Auschwitz SS self-labelled as Catholic (42.6%), Protestant (36.5%) or Gottgläubig (20.1%; the word means God-believer or devout, and was the term favoured by the “German Christians”); not one was recorded as “without faith” (atheist). Indeed Himmler declared that: “I have never tolerated an atheist in the ranks of the SS. Every member has a deep faith in God”."
this equates German with Nazi. not all Germans were Nazis this shows that Germans were Christians that does't mean that German Nazi stuff was Christian,
The Germans were Christians, and so were the Nazi authorities. It's right there in the quote you gave, which you obviously don't grok. Do you not know what SS is? The majority of Hitler's senior staff was Catholic, as was Hitler himself. Atheists were persecuted by the Nazis, the same as Jews. Every time I hear people trying to claim that Nazi atrocities were attributable to atheism, I have to laugh at the ignorant denial of historical FACT.
You say the bible was written by Jews. Sure, the old testament was. As for the NT, the authorship is largely unknown. And there is clear anti-semitic content, or at the very least, that content has been interpreted by Christians as a basis for hating Jews. You can't honestly deny that.
Arguing with you is like arguing with the idiots at Atheism Analyzed. It is fact-free and ideology-driven. You say you are a scholar, and I'm not. Prove it. You have no more academic credentials than I do. And being in a doctoral program at some bible college means nothing. The fact that you wrote some religious book that abuses science tells me that you are no scholar. I see no evidence that you understand what can and can't be inferred from those studies.
My advice to you, Joe, is to show a bit more objectivity if you want to sound like a scholar. You have to at least give consideration to arguments that don't favor your religious beliefs. If you can come up with rational and well-reasoned counter-arguments, that's fine. But you can't do that without listening to them n the first place.
>>>Why don't you bother to read the material I present? Or are you just blind to anything that disputes your ideology?
Yeah stupid, I read the works that article CITES, like Steigman-Gall, and many more by scholars of German history. Why would I want to read second hand crapola by some amateur? What next, you want me to read the Wikipedia article on the subject? Or watch the Sesame Street episode where Big Bird discusses "Positive Christianity"? Have you read MY book yet? If not, shut your face with cement and baling wire. Your simple-minded assessment is exactly what my book, and the scholars I cite, reject and refute.
I am unable to work bozo i, in rehab was in a coma for two months and I still cant walk. When i could work I was a teaching assistant at U.T. Dallas, in History of ideas. I have Masters degree in theology and I am ABD on Ph,D in History of ideas. ABD includes passing qualifying examines. I have all the very same knowledge as anyone with Ph,D has regarding the subject matter.
I published an academic journal that was peer reviewed and indexed. i published in it and in other journals. I have presented papers at circumferences ancI was quotedin a foot note in other scholars book, I was asked to referee for an academe airmail damn was listed on their editorial board.
I know it's not a big successful career, i didst achieve any of the things i set out to do. I know why i didst, you don't need to how you want to make imbecilic creaks about y level of scholarship when it's far ahead of your.
I don;t have to be Author O.Lovejoy to know more than you do about history.Just because i'm not making a living off of scholarship now does not make me an amateur, I was trained to be a professional scholar and i am still producing professional quality scholarship. Of course you are an idiot you don't know the first thing about scholarship.
Look at how you turn to a scientist rather than a historian, why because you think scientists know all things, But Hellier is ignorant of history, as are you You also don't read the material. you don't read the articles people write against your view so you never really answer anything we argue, that screams sloppy and amateur!
God tellig me not tell people off
^^^ Amateur Christian scholars showing their stuff. I love it.
1/28/2017 03:47:00 PM Delete
you don't even come up to par as an amateur scholar I love it,
simplistic ignorant unscholarly concept of proof, you have no idea what scholarship is about, that is covered kin tye paper for tomorrow but I will just say here your view are nonsense,
You say the bible was written by Jews. Sure, the old testament was. As for the NT, the authorship is largely unknown. And there is clear anti-semitic content, or at the very least, that content has been interpreted by Christians as a basis for hating Jews. You can't honestly deny that.
that is so extremeness ignorant, stupid. No scholar thanks the brunt of the NT was written by non Jews. The idea of unjewish NT was kicked in the head by the dead sea scrolls that is common knowledge from the early 50s. Not knowing that is just the ultimate in ignorance.
Arguing with you is like arguing with the idiots at Atheism Analyzed. It is fact-free and ideology-driven. You say you are a scholar, and I'm not.
almost everything you say is idiotic and none of it has foundation. When you try to document you use third rate sources like Hellier, He's good in physics not so much in history, not knowing that just magnifies your stupidity,
Prove it. You have no more academic credentials than I do. And being in a doctoral program at some bible college means nothing.
more proof you are a dumb ass, you are too stupid to know SMU is a respected program.It;s far beyond a bible college it's the Yale farms]team, 0% of their profs went to yale, only two guys went to mediocre places.
that was for my Masters, My Ph,D work was at University of Tea at Dallas which is state ran and highly respected. I had 4.0 for for five years,
The fact that you wrote some religious book that abuses science tells me that you are no scholar. I see no evidence that you understand what can and can't be inferred from those studies.
little wumpus iof it abuses science tell me why the major researcher in the field said it;s a good book? Huuummm little ignoramus? tell me why three of the major people in the field lauded my work if it abuses science you don't know shit about science. all you know is waht ahteist web site tells you to do say,
It's extremely childish that your whole campaign of disparagement of my work is based upon your the fact that it disproves your God hater game. you don't know enough to criticize my work.
My advice to you, Joe, is to show a bit more objectivity if you want to sound like a scholar. You have to at least give consideration to arguments that don't favor your religious beliefs. If you can come up with rational and well-reasoned counter-arguments, that's fine. But you can't do that without listening to them n the first place.
my advised to you is to stop flapping your ignorant gums
1/28/2017 11:23:00 AM Delete
When it comes to demonstrating your intellectual prowess, you fall flat, Joe. It takes more than bragging about your credentials. Your arguments are poorly constructed, and when challenged, you typically resort to a combination of ad hominem attacks and appeal to authority (your own). You are a joke.
An example of this happened a few years ago on DI. In the comments section of one of Vic's blog entries, he seemed upset that people believe in the resurrection of Jesus because it is against science (in his view).
You're a fine one to talk.
slander.
fraud.
I am smart, My IQ 142 I'm doimg to play dumb, I know I', a failure Ine er said i', always right, that's ot like Trump.l Trump would never say such things,,
When it comes to demonstrating your intellectual prowess, you fall flat, Joe. It takes more than bragging about your credentials. Your arguments are poorly constructed, and when challenged, you typically resort to a combination of ad hominem attacks and appeal to authority (your own). You are a joke.
what do you have to judge it by? you never have done any of the things I;ve talked about,l no academic journal, no publications no graduate school. you don't knlow anything.
anything you say to put down my work is just putting youself that much further down,
Tekton Ticker: Rene Salm's Nazareth Miss
The second link uses sources like Chris Hallquist and Richard Carrier. Not all that great. I am disappointed in your sources again, Skep. You and your buddies don't choose good material.
Of course, you will go to your blog and call me a Turkel Fanboy. Go right ahead. It just shows that you don't wanna grow up, and that your Atheism is based on emotion rather than logic.
Wrong on all counts, Joe.
Christianity Causes Nazism?
>>>slander
What's your point? Not only is Rene Salm as total jackass who holds to a fringe position, the lawsuit he refers to is over and the plaintiff owes me $21,494.96 in legal fees.
>>>fraud
Tweet tweet tweet. Brooks Trubee hasn't updated the bulk of that website since 2009. It's just a suitcase full of disconnected soundbites. You voted for Trump, didn't you?