Do liberals and atheists honestly think Hitler represents Christianity?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What you call 'history' is little more than an ideologically driven narrative..

LOL! Nope. You just don't like the FACT that the history of christianity is one of consistent immorality and evil.

Keep trying to rewrite what actually happened. Those of us not pretending that Santa Claus was real, know the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! Nope. You just don't like the FACT that the history of christianity is one of consistent immorality and evil.

Keep trying to rewrite what actually happened. Those of us not pretending that Santa Claus was real, know the truth.

I would amend that to "some Christians". Of course when it is obvious to Christians that one of theirs went astray then they get the label of 'Not a true Christian".

As to the title of this thread, Hitler does not represent Christianity even though he was a Christian. I would not say that Hitler represented Christianity any more than various atheists represented atheism. People very often misunderstand the core tenets of their beliefs, or even lack of belief.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The west as we know it wouldn't exist. After the Western Empire collapsed the Catholic Church became the sole institution capable of transmitting and preserving what was good of classical culture. Rampaging Germanic tribesmen don't have much time for anything as silly as literacy. And as such for centuries the only people who could read and write were the clergy, who in turn taught and retaught Europe. It was Christianity that brought writing to the Slavic, Germanic and Celtic peoples. It was Christianity that introduced the conceptual framework that would allow for things such as universities and hospitals. Heck, the Knight Templar inadvertently invented banking..

LMAO! Talk about BLINDERS on-- you have it in spades. Banking was done by Jews, because the "christian" church forbade collecting of interest.

Moreover? The Library Of Alexandria was burned by you Good Christians-- destroying centuries of ideas, discoveries and thought.

"preserve"? GIVE ME A BREAK-- the Catholic church MURDERED anyone who dared show the world was NOT the center of everything.

Your pathetic attempt to rewrite history is so typical.

 

[Augustus]

Citation Needed. You obviously never read any of his actual diaries...

The Hitler Diaries: How hoax documents became the most infamous fake news ever
Thirty-five years after forensic tests showed the diaries to have been forged, Adam Lusher recalls an extraordinary story of deception, delusion and incredulity

Sometimes you just have to shrug your shoulders, issue an apology and explain that when you try to produce news, you sometimes end up with fake news.

Shortly after the so-called Hitler Diaries were exposed as a hoax 35 years ago this Sunday, The Sunday Times, the newspaper which had believed them genuine and published extracts, excused itself with the lofty observation: “Serious journalism is a high-risk enterprise.”

How 'The Hitler Diaries' became the most infamous fake news ever

Moreover? The Library Of Alexandria was burned by you Good Christians-- destroying centuries of ideas, discoveries and thought.

For anyone who is interested in actual history, rather than emotionally satisfying ideological driven pseudo-history, this is flat-earth wrong for so many reasons

If the library was actually burned down, then it was by Julius Caesar, although any fire would only have been partial.

The library simply declined over time as no one was willing to pay for its very expensive upkeep.

There was no Great Library by the time the Roman Empire was Christianised, and the myth is based on Christians burning down a nearby Temple of Seraphis as part of tit-for-tat communal violence resulting from a political dispute. The Temple of Seraphis was not a great centre of learning.

Other than the fact it wasn't destroyed by Christians because it hadn't existed for a century by this point, even if it had it wouldn't have made any real difference. The 'Great Library' wasn't even that great when it did exist and it is massively overstated how important it was, how many texts it contained, how unique the texts were (any texts considered important existed at multiple locations), and also that it was full of great 'scientific' texts.

It was part of a complex dedicated to the muses (Museion) and was thus mostly dedicated to the arts, poetry, etc although it may have also contained some works of natural philosophy.

For a scholarly discussion of the massive exaggeration of the library's importance in its heyday see Alexandria: Library of Dreams (tl;dr: its destruction or otherwise would have made zero difference to anything).

GIVE ME A BREAK-- the Catholic church MURDERED anyone who dared show the world was NOT the center of everything.

Such historical illiteracy is actually quite impressive, although not really surprising.

Open challenge to anyone: how many people people can you actually name who were killed by the Church for their 'science'?

Bonus questions: Was Copernicus simply engaging in epic trolling when he dedicated "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" to Pope Paul III?

Bonus question II: Who was Copernicus' patron?

Bonus question III: Why was the Church by far the biggest sponsor of astronomical investigation if it was so opposed to it?

Bonus question IV: How come so many natural philosophers ("scientists") were clerics or friars ("employees" of the church) if the Church was oppressing them all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Hitler Diaries: How hoax documents became the most infamous fake news ever
Thirty-five years after forensic tests showed the diaries to have been forged, Adam Lusher recalls an extraordinary story of deception, delusion and incredulity

Sometimes you just have to shrug your shoulders, issue an apology and explain that when you try to produce news, you sometimes end up with fake news.

Shortly after the so-called Hitler Diaries were exposed as a hoax 35 years ago this Sunday, The Sunday Times, the newspaper which had believed them genuine and published extracts, excused itself with the lofty observation: “Serious journalism is a high-risk enterprise.”

How 'The Hitler Diaries' became the most infamous fake news ever



For anyone who is interested in actual history, rather than emotionally satisfying ideological driven pseudo-history, this is flat-earth wrong for so many reasons

If the library was actually burned down, then it was by Julius Caesar, although any fire would only have been partial.

The library simply declined over time as no one was willing to pay for its very expensive upkeep.

There was no Great Library by the time the Roman Empire was Christianised, and the myth is based on Christians burning down a nearby Temple of Seraphis as part of tit-for-tat communal violence resulting from a political dispute. The Temple of Seraphis was not a great centre of learning.

Other than the fact it wasn't destroyed by Christians because it hadn't existed for a century by this point, even if it had it wouldn't have made any real difference. The 'Great Library' wasn't even that great when it did exist and it is massively overstated how important it was, how many texts it contained, how unique the texts were (any texts considered important existed at multiple locations), and also that it was full of great 'scientific' texts.

It was part of a complex dedicated to the muses (Museion) and was thus mostly dedicated to the arts, poetry, etc although it may have also contained some works of natural philosophy.

For a scholarly discussion of the massive exaggeration of the library's importance in its heyday see Alexandria: Library of Dreams (tl;dr: its destruction or otherwise would have made zero difference to anything).



Such historical illiteracy is actually quite impressive, although not really surprising.

Open challenge to anyone: how many people people can you actually name who were killed by the Church for their 'science'?

Bonus questions: Was Copernicus simply engaging in epic trolling when he dedicated "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" to Pope Paul III?

Bonus question II: Who was Copernicus' patron?

Bonus question III: Why was the Church by far the biggest sponsor of astronomical investigation if it was so opposed to it?

Bonus question IV: How come so many natural philosophers ("scientists") were clerics or friars ("employees" of the church) if the Church was oppressing them all?

It is incomplete to merely ask who were the biggest patrons of some early scientists. To be honest you would need to ask why Copernicus was afraid to publish during his lifetime. Your Bogus questions are improper since they only look at part of the issue. Yes, the Catholic Church supported various scientists. They supported them to give them the answers that they wanted. When the answers did not meet Catholic expectations the results were not so pleasant. Ask Galileo.

 

[Augustus]

It is incomplete to merely ask who were the biggest patrons of some early scientists. To be honest you would need to ask why Copernicus was afraid to publish during his lifetime. Your Bogus questions are improper since they only look at part of the issue. Yes, the Catholic Church supported various scientists. They supported them to give them the answers that they wanted. When the answers did not meet Catholic expectations the results were not so pleasant. Ask Galileo.

They aren't "bogus" questions in response to a post that says the Church murdered everyone who dared show the world is not the centre of everything.

Copernicus died shortly after completing De Revolutionibus..., and it was published via the help of his friend and mentor, the Bishop of Kulm.

I'm more than happy to discuss the complexities and contradictions of the relationship between Christianity and 'science', and more than happy to back it up with academic scholarship. It is obviously clear that there were both positive and negative impacts in this regard (and the positives weren't exactly trivial).

But if you are going to accuse me of "looking at part of the issue"...

Why did you give a "winner" rating to a post that is objectively wrong about pretty much everything? And how many murdered 'scientists' can you name (or even oppressed ones)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

They aren't "bogus" questions in response to a post that says the Church murdered everyone who dared show the world is not the centre of everything.

Copernicus died shortly after completing De Revolutionibus..., and it was published via the help of his friend and mentor, the Bishop of Kulm.

I'm more than happy to discuss the complexities and contradictions of the relationship between Christianity and 'science', and more than happy to back it up with academic scholarship. It is obviously clear that there were both positive and negative impacts in this regard (and the positives weren't exactly trivial).

But if you are going to accuse me of "looking at part of the issue"...

Why did you give a "winner" rating to a post that is objectively wrong about pretty much everything? And how many murdered 'scientists' can you name (or even oppressed ones)?

Galileo was clearly oppressed. Bruno was murdered.

Yes, an overstatement was made. Correcting that would have been the right thing to do. Making a misleading post where you try to absolve the Catholic Church of its past behavior is at least as bad if not worse than that in the post that you are complaining about.

 

[Augustus]

Galileo was clearly oppressed.

True, but the issue is far more complex than is usually imagined. Aside from the personal dispute he had with the Pope which exacerbated the problem, one of the Church's issues was that the science wasn't actually agreed on. In fact the Church sided with the majority of contemporary astronomers.

Galileo also had supporters and opponents inside the church. The period was also one of social and theological conflict resulting from the Reformation (i.e. theological disputes), and consequently the Church was far more sensitive to such issues than it had been during the Medieval period.

But it is clear that it is, to some extent, true to say Galileo was oppressed based on a scientific principle,

So far then we have 1 person subject to house arrest in 1600 years.

Can you add to this list?

Bruno was murdered.

It's interesting the 2nd guy in the long, long list of people oppressed for their science wasn't in any way a scientist (or equivalent) and was killed for his views on Mary (not a virgin), Jesus (not divine) and other points of faith.

Not exactly a shining beacon of tolerance, but hardly something which supports the claim.

So, so far we have zero people murdered, and one person oppressed. Were they as oppressive as you seem to believe, surely you should be able to name some more...

Yes, an overstatement was made. Correcting that would have been the right thing to do. Making a misleading post where you try to absolve the Catholic Church of its past behavior is at least as bad if not worse than that in the post that you are complaining about.

At least as bad if not worse? Let's compare them.

A post that talks about a completely fictitious event, at a library that didn't exist with purported effects that would not have been true even had the library existed and events occurred (supported by peer-reviewed scholarship). And on the second point, we have a grand list of zero people killed.

Something which is completely false is not an 'overstatement', it is completely false.

Now I assume you judged that post to have a good degree of truth in it, hence the rating, yet you considered my post 'misleading'.

Do you accept that the library didn't exist and wasn't burned down by Christians and wouldn't have had the stated impact even if it had existed? Is this a misleading statement?

For the second part you have made an incorrect assumption based on what you believe my motivations are, rather than what I actually said. My position is that the Church both often helped, and sometimes harmed scientific enquiry. This position is in line with the majority of academic historians as the Conflict Thesis that I assume you agree with has been thoroughly discredited.

Given that my reply was correcting an obvious falsehood, rather than presenting a nuanced discussion of centuries of interaction between religion and science, can you make a reasoned argument for why it was 'misleading' in relation to correcting this specific falsehood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

True, but the issue is far more complex than is usually imagined. Aside from the personal dispute he had with the Pope which exacerbated the problem, one of the Church's issues was that the science wasn't actually agreed on. In fact the Church sided with the majority of contemporary astronomers.

Galileo also had supporters and opponents inside the church. The period was also one of social and theological conflict resulting from the Reformation (i.e. theological disputes), and consequently the Church was far more sensitive to such issues than it had been during the Medieval period.

But it is clear that it is, to some extent, true to say Galileo was oppressed based on a scientific principle,

So far then we have 1 person subject to house arrest in 1600 years.

Can you add to this list?




It's interesting the 2nd guy in the long, long list of people oppressed for their science wasn't in any way a scientist (or equivalent) and was killed for his views on Mary (not a virgin), Jesus (not divine) and other points of faith.

Not exactly a shining beacon of tolerance, but hardly something which supports the claim.

So, so far we have zero people murdered, and one person oppressed. Were they as oppressive as you seem to believe, surely you should be able to name some more...



At least as bad if not worse? Let's compare them.

A post that talks about a completely fictitious event, at a library that didn't exist with purported effects that would not have been true even had the library existed and events occurred (supported by peer-reviewed scholarship). And on the second point, we have a grand list of zero people killed.

Something which is completely false is not an 'overstatement', it is completely false.

Now I assume you judged that post to have a good degree of truth in it, hence the rating, yet you considered my post 'misleading'.

Do you accept that the library didn't exist and wasn't burned down by Christians and wouldn't have had the stated impact even if it had existed? Is this a misleading statement?

For the second part you have made an incorrect assumption based on what you believe my motivations are, rather than what I actually said. My position is that the Church both often helped, and sometimes harmed scientific enquiry. This position is in line with the majority of academic historians as the Conflict Thesis that I assume you agree with has been thoroughly discredited.

Given that my reply was correcting an obvious falsehood, rather than presenting a nuanced discussion of centuries of interaction between religion and science, can you make a reasoned argument for why it was 'misleading' in relation to correcting this specific falsehood?

Whoa wait a second. Are you trying to claim that Bruno was not murdered?

 

[Augustus]

Whoa wait a second. Are you trying to claim that Bruno was not murdered?

No. I'm stating that he wasn't a 'scientist' (or equivalent) and that he was killed for heresy connected to denying the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, Mary's virginity, etc. rather than cosmology. As such he is not relevant to the point being discussed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I'm stating that he wasn't a 'scientist' (or equivalent) and that he was killed for heresy connected to denying the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, Mary's virginity, etc. rather than cosmology. As such he is not relevant to the point being discussed.

I am not so sure of that, but I do sincerely doubt that there were not others. Perhaps some day, if I am feeling particularly anti-Aging I will investigate this further.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I'm stating that he wasn't a 'scientist' (or equivalent) and that he was killed for heresy connected to denying the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, Mary's virginity, etc. rather than cosmology. As such he is not relevant to the point being discussed.

I am not so sure of that, but I do sincerely doubt that there were not others. Perhaps some day, if I am feeling particularly anti-Aging I will investigate this further.

 

[Augustus]

I am not so sure of that, but I do sincerely doubt that there were not others. Perhaps some day, if I am feeling particularly anti-Aging I will investigate this further.

Fair enough, if you find any let me know. I can't say with any certainty that there were literally no others, might be a handful of who had troubles but not a great number. I used to assume there were many too because I was brought up in a culture where 'everyone knows the Church was anti-science'.

Given the timescales involved and the fact that true freedom of enquiry was not really a feature of pre-modern societies, including that of the 'rational' Greeks, there really isn't much persuasive evidence behind the Conflict Thesis. This was originated in the 18th/19thC by people who certainly had a particular agenda, and is rejected by the vast majority of modern historians of science (not just Christians). There can't be many subject areas where 'common knowledge' is more out of step with scholarly opinion than this one.

Of course the Church wasn't faultless (and neither were Protestant theologians), but the degree to which they were a roadblock to scientific progress is vastly overstated. This also has to be balanced against numerous positive impacts, from preserving and translating Graeco-Arabic sources, contributions to mass education in Natural Philosophy beyond traditional elites, facilitating/funding of scholarship (hence all the clerics and friars who made significant discoveries), etc.

Interestingly, one of the reasons science (in the modern sense) gained traction in society, was its link to theology which made it something worth studying. Experimental science was widely considered pointless, and a waste of money at first. It was even mocked in Gulliver's Travels; the people of Laputa with their interest in completely impractical knowledge were based on Swift's contempt for experimental scientists. He even viewed it as actively immoral given resources could be better used to help the poor.

I find it a a really interesting subject, where the history was really nothing like I expected it to be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Stalin was an atheist who tried to exterminate religion though force. How many times do I have to tell you, Marxism is anti-religion.

Stalin was an ex-seminary student who used that training to build a communist empire.

It's important to remember that the Russian church was inexorably linked with - and supported - the Tsarist regime. Toppling that regime had to mean taking on the established church.

There was no church-state separation in Russia before the Russian Revolution. Religious ministers were just as much officials of the state as governmental ministers were.

 

[sooda]

I'm trying to get through the Mao and Pol Pot thread but the notion that Hitler represents over 2 billion people is stupid.

Hitler wasn't a Christian.. He was a con man. Here's an excerpt from a piece on exactly how he rose to power.

Myth: Democracy elected Hitler to power.

Fact: Hitler used backroom deals, not votes, to come to power.



It took the Great Depression -- which hit Germany harder than any than any other nation -- to turn Nazism into a true mass movement. But even then, the Nazis never gained a majority of the people's vote.

Nazism generally appealed to only a third of the German people, and these came from its lower classes, armed forces and war industries.

Nearly two-thirds of Germany were opposed to Hitler, and adamantly so. There was never any hope that Hitler could have won their support.

It goes without saying that if the German Republic had been truly democratic, it would have survived even the test of a depression.

Democracy elected Hitler to power

One remarkable fact remains: where there is a failure of democracy, there is usually a lack of democracy.


The following history is taken from perhaps the two most famous works on Hitler and Nazi Germany: William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1960), chapters 3, 5-7, and Alan Bullock's Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, abridged edition, (New York: HarperCollins, 1962), chapters 3-5.

A lesser source for this essay, but one which faithfully follows the above accounts, is The History Place: The Rise of Adolf Hitler, From Unknown to Dictator of Germany. It can be found online at http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/index.htm.

 

[ChristineM]

Hitler wasn't a Christian.. He was a con man. Here's an excerpt from a piece on exactly how he rose to power.

Myth: Democracy elected Hitler to power.

Fact: Hitler used backroom deals, not votes, to come to power.



It took the Great Depression -- which hit Germany harder than any than any other nation -- to turn Nazism into a true mass movement. But even then, the Nazis never gained a majority of the people's vote.

Nazism generally appealed to only a third of the German people, and these came from its lower classes, armed forces and war industries.

Nearly two-thirds of Germany were opposed to Hitler, and adamantly so. There was never any hope that Hitler could have won their support.

It goes without saying that if the German Republic had been truly democratic, it would have survived even the test of a depression.

Democracy elected Hitler to power

One remarkable fact remains: where there is a failure of democracy, there is usually a lack of democracy.


The following history is taken from perhaps the two most famous works on Hitler and Nazi Germany: William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1960), chapters 3, 5-7, and Alan Bullock's Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, abridged edition, (New York: HarperCollins, 1962), chapters 3-5.

A lesser source for this essay, but one which faithfully follows the above accounts, is The History Place: The Rise of Adolf Hitler, From Unknown to Dictator of Germany. It can be found online at http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/index.htm.

Unfortunately the facts, his speeches, his actions, even the vatican prove an arts bachelor and web site owner to be wrong.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hitler wasn't a Christian.. He was a con man. Here's an excerpt from a piece on exactly how he rose to power.

Myth: Democracy elected Hitler to power.

Fact: Hitler used backroom deals, not votes, to come to power.



It took the Great Depression -- which hit Germany harder than any than any other nation -- to turn Nazism into a true mass movement. But even then, the Nazis never gained a majority of the people's vote.

Nazism generally appealed to only a third of the German people, and these came from its lower classes, armed forces and war industries.

Nearly two-thirds of Germany were opposed to Hitler, and adamantly so. There was never any hope that Hitler could have won their support.

It goes without saying that if the German Republic had been truly democratic, it would have survived even the test of a depression.

Democracy elected Hitler to power

One remarkable fact remains: where there is a failure of democracy, there is usually a lack of democracy.


The following history is taken from perhaps the two most famous works on Hitler and Nazi Germany: William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1960), chapters 3, 5-7, and Alan Bullock's Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, abridged edition, (New York: HarperCollins, 1962), chapters 3-5.

A lesser source for this essay, but one which faithfully follows the above accounts, is The History Place: The Rise of Adolf Hitler, From Unknown to Dictator of Germany. It can be found online at http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/index.htm.

Sorry, I'll take the actual words of actual Hitler, in his private diaries, over the apologizers every time.

 

[sooda]

Sorry, I'll take the actual words of actual Hitler, in his private diaries, over the apologizers every time.

I'm sorry... Hitler played the Christian for the mobs..

Diary of the Hitler Diary Hoax | The New Yorker

Diary of the Hitler Diary Hoax. By Sally McGrane. April 25, 2013 ... the Hitler Diaries hoax is still the biggest scandal to have hit German journalism after 1945. ... Hitler’s private secretary …

Diary of the Hitler Diary Hoax

On April 25, 1983, Stern magazine—the German answer to Life—held a press conference to make a sensational announcement: their star reporter had discovered a trove of Hitler’s personal diaries, lost since a plane crash in 1945. Now Stern would begin publishing what he’d found.

The magazine claimed that the diaries—of which, remarkably, there had been no previous record—would require a major rewriting of Hitler’s biography and the history of the Third Reich.

The handwritten volumes included everything from descriptions of flatulence and halitosis (“Eva says I have bad breath”), to an account of Braun’s hysterical pregnancy in 1940, and the revelation that a surprisingly sensitive Hitler didn’t know what was happening to the Jews...

continued

 

[sooda]

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic.

In light of evidence such as his fierce criticism and vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity, numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition, and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity.

Historian Laurence Rees found no evidence that "Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church". Ernst Hanfstaengl, a friend from his early days in politics, says Hitler "was to all intents and purposes an atheist by the time I got to know him". However, historians such as Richard Weikart and Alan Bullock doubt the assessment that he was a true atheist, suggesting that despite his dislike of Christianity he still clung to a form of spiritual belief.

Religious aspects of Nazism - Wikipedia

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm trying to get through the Mao and Pol Pot thread but the notion that Hitler represents over 2 billion people is stupid.

I have never heard an atheist state that Hitler was representative of all Christians or denominations. I have heard Christians state that Hitler’s atrocities are atributable to him being an atheist. Most atheists simply state in defense that Hitler grew up as a Catholic, and he sometimes invoked the Christian god in his speeches. His storm troopers wore belt buckles with the inscription “God is with us”.
He certainly may have been a con man in some ways. But also, consider that “con man” and “Christian” are apparently not mutually exclusive terms.
You can try to invoke the “not a true Christian” crutch, but there is no way to objectively make such a discernment. Different factions in Christianity often point to other factions and claim they are not “true Christians, and use the same book to make their arguments. From the outside, one can only take the person’s word that they believe in the Christian god. There is no other reliable means of measurement.

personally, I think the jury is still out and there is no definitive answer, only educated guesses.

at any rate, you are erecting a straw man argument that I have never heard anyone use.