The real roots of Hitler’s ideology

I’m digressing briefly from my Christmas series on the significance of Jesus’ birth in order to address something that’s recently come up on my blog, and now on other blogs I follow. It seems to be about just who’s to blame for Hitler.

Hitler is a bit of an enigma, and therefore easy for all sides to use him to attack their opponents. Anti-Christian atheists claim that Hitler’s atrocities can be somehow tied to his alleged Christian faith. But we could just as easily turn that argument on its head and say that Hitler was a product of the positivist Darwinian ideology of the early 20th century. The truth is probably all the above…and none of the above.

What I have tried to show is that it’s a fallacious argument to just say Hitler was a “Christian.” Hitler was a lot of things but he was no Christian by any stretch of biblical definition! He studied and practiced the art of manipulation and subterfuge from an early age and by the time he came into power in the 1930’s he was the master at propaganda and crowd control, shrewdly feigning Christian values and taking advantage of the current societal anger and national humiliation (from the Treaty of Versailles) to gain support in Christian Germany in particular, and Europe in general. But these were all deceptive lies.

The truth is, Hitler and the Nazis drew their ideology from various sources: Völkisch Nationalism, Christian Anti-Judaism, Social Sciences like Philology and Anthropology, Modern Racism in Social Darwinism and Genetics and Eugenics, and Modern Anti-Semitism. From these sources, they developed “a Nazi worldview that claimed to explain everything about the world and how it functions.” (from clip below)

Here’s a video clip from Yad Vashem (Holocaust Education Center) on the roots of Nazi ideology. It’s very good.

Where Christian and modern secular humanism beliefs in the 19th and early 20th Century both held that all humans were created equal, others exploited the emergence of the sciences and philosophy to show that the races were not equal. The Nazis took advantage of the latter. Here’s another quote from the end of the video clip:

“The Nazis’ innovation was not in their ideas. Which as we have seen they borrowed from earlier thinking. Their innovation lay in molding these ideas into a comprehensive worldview that was the basis for the policy making of a modern, scientifically, technologically, and educationally advanced country. And it was from this worldview that the Final Solution ultimately emerged.”

Hitler seemed to be more driven by extreme nationalism and racial purity than by religion or science. The cornerstone of his racist ideology was Aryan mythology.

The Aryan mythology was inspired in part by Darwin’s evolutionary theory of natural selection. The Aryans were supposedly a genetically superior race of people from Northern Europe and Scandinavia. This ideology claimed that the Aryan “master race” was destined to control Europe, while keeping the lower races in servitude (controlling the middle and lower races). On the other hand, the Jews were considered an “anti-race” and should be exterminated like a virus in order to keep Europe pure from its vile contamination. You can watch a whole video clip on this here.

“While at Landsberg, Hitler dictated most of the first volume of Mein Kampf (My Struggle; originally entitled Four and a Half Years of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice) to his deputy, Rudolf Hess. The book, dedicated to Thule Society member Dietrich Eckart, was an autobiography and exposition of his ideology. The book laid out Hitler’s plans for transforming German society into one based on race. Some passages imply genocide.” (Wikipedia)

My point is not to show that religion or science and philosophy are to blame for creating a Hitler, but that his Nazism was the brainchild of evil men who used these sources as a pretext to launch perhaps the most deceptive and destructive evil reign of terror in human history.

So, should we sing, “Imagine no religion and no Hitler…it’s easy to do.” Well, we might just as well add, “Imagine no science and no human beings, too” while we’re at it.

In other words, you cannot rightly cherry-pick quotes from people like Hitler in order to attack Christianity any more than I can point to his use of science-based modern Anti-Semitism to attack the sciences or Darwinism. The only common denominator is diabolically evil people. Period.

If anything the horrors of the 20th Century should’ve taught us with monsters like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or the scientific development of weapons that brought us to the brink of extinction, along with the continual violence and inhumanities to humankind we still see today, is that the problem is not with religion. It seems more likely that the haters are gonna hate regardless of what worldview or ideology they embrace. It’s also a naïve pipedream to think that simply getting rid of what we don’t like will bring about world peace. That fantasy notion sort of reminds me of when my wife didn’t want to encourage violence with our boys when they were young, so we didn’t buy them any toy guns. What did they do? They made guns out of sticks they found in the yard.

And now we will be returning to our regularly scheduled programming.

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 39 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Christian apologetics and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

151 Responses to The real roots of Hitler’s ideology

  1. John Branyan says:

    I get it. Explaining Hitler’s theology is necessary because the nitwit trolls on your blog think that anyone who makes reference to God is adhering to Christian doctrine. You have to explain Hitler but they don’t need to explain Stalin. Sound right?

    Once you set them straight on The Third Reich, you can expect questions about The Inquisition. When you suggest that atheists shouldn’t expect the universe to contain moral absolutes, you’ll be accused of “dodging uncomfortable questions”.

    Despite his claims, Hitler was philosophically closer to atheism than he was to Christianity.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Yeah, Stalin was a deconvert and card-carrying atheist. But, of course, atheism is free of content, right? That’s why Stalin either shut down or blew up 54,000 churches. He agreed with our anti-theist friends that the world would be better off without religion. And look how much he improved Russia!

      Hitler’s true religion was narcissism, but I would agree, Nazi ideological roots are more pagan and scientistic (as opposed to scientific) atheism than Christian. Actually, all of his philosophical views were the opposite of Christ’s teachings, so he was anti-Christ.

      Hitler was a true product of 19th and 20th Century Positivism run amuck. Of course, we also better not talk about the 100 million-plus people murdered by anti-Christian governments in the 20th Century, more than all the atrocities in human history combined.

    • john zande says:

      ”We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out”.
      – Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933

      and this from the NYT’s: “Atheist Hall Converted.”

      “In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership. The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members…”
      – The New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2, on Hitler’s outlawing atheistic andfreethinking groups in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree

      and this from the Associated Press: “Campaign against ‘Godless Movement’”

      “A campaign against the ‘godless movement’ and an appeal for Catholic support were launched by Chancellor Adolf Hitler’s forces.”
      – Associated Press story, February 23, 1933, quoted from Positive Atheism

      But hey, let’s not let facts get in the way of a good pantomime…

      • John Branyan says:

        Lol!
        You never do let facts affect your pantomime! Keep blowing, Windbag!

        • john zande says:

          And here is an extract from the Catholic Hierarchy of Austria public proclamation titled: “National Socialism Defends Against Atheist Bolshe”

          “We joyfully acknowledge that the National Socialist movement has done and is still doing eminent work in the domain of national and economic construction as well as in the domain of social policy, for the Reich and the German nation… We are also convinced that the activity of the National Socialist movement has averted the danger of an all-destroying atheistic Bolshevism. For the future, the bishops confer their heartiest blessing on this activity, and they will instruct the faithful to this effect. …it is for us a national duty, as Germans, to vote for the German Reich, and we also expect all believing Christians to demonstrate that they know what they owe to their nation.”
          -Catholic Hierarchy of Austria, March 18, 1938

        • John Branyan says:

          Lol!
          Yes! That’s exactly right, Windbag! Christianity is best defined by Adolf Hitler!
          Can you think of any reason why the Catholic church might express fondness for National Socialist movement?
          Why do you think the Catholic church hasn’t penned positive sentiments about Hitler since the end of the war?

          Think hard, Windbag! Can your monumental intelligence answer these questions?

        • john zande says:

          Did I say anything about it being “best defined”?

          As I’ve already pointed out to Mel, it is simply a matter of opinion as to what is a “good Christian.”

          A working example: Roy Moore, a man so vile he was banned from shopping malls for preying on little children.

          Roy Moore thinks he is a very, very good Christian… and the overwhelming majority of evangelicals agree.

          By exit polling in the recent election, Roy Moore, the child molester, garnered 80% OF THE EVANGELICAL VOTE.

          80%.

          So, you see… It’s just a matter of opinion.

        • John Branyan says:

          Whooooooosh!
          Can’t answer either question.
          That’s what I expected would happen.
          LOL! So beautifully predictable!

      • Mel Wild says:

        @JohnZ
        Thanks for making my point about anti-Christian atheists who use quotes but don’t know what they’re talking about. Again, these people were duped, but you have no excuse.

        • john zande says:

          That’s your “opinion.”

          Their opinion differed.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, it’s not JohnZ. We test whether someone is following Christ by the fruit, not by what they say. It’s not opinion. Your argument is totally fallacious and dangerously ignorant,

        • john zande says:

          Is Roy Moore a good Christian?

        • Mel Wild says:

          What does that have to do with Hitler?

        • john zande says:

          Is Roy Moore a good Christian?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Was Stalin a good atheist?

        • john zande says:

          Please answer the question, Mel:

          Is Roy Moore a good Christian?

        • Mel Wild says:

          John, I see you are up to your fallacious red herrings again. Why can’t you stay on subject? What’s the matter?

          I don’t know as much about Roy Moore as I do about Hitler, other than what I read in the news. From what I do know, he is not following Christ and has some serious issues to deal with. And that’s all I will say about it. I am not a political person.

          Please stay on subject or don’t comment here.

        • john zande says:

          This is dead on subject… and you know it is.

          So, you’re wiggling your way out of committing to a statement. Fair enough. If I may, I’m guessing you (actually) think a child molester is not a “good Christian.”

          Correct? Let’s hope so.

          So, Roy Moore, the child molester, believes he’s a very, very, very good Christian… and 80% of Evangelicals agree.

          80%.

          So, the “opinion” of all these Christians about what a good Christian is differs from your opinion.

          The same applies to Hitler. He believed he was a very, very, very good Christian… and German Christians and church leaders agreed.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Even if everything you say is true, they were terribly WRONG. This is not just my opinion. It’s established by the very teachings of Christ. You are erecting a straw man, taking the worst examples of RELIGION, and associating that with Christianity (which is another fallacy). And if it’s true about Roy Moore, then the 80% vote was probably more politically and culturally motivated than because of Christianity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with actually BEING a Christian, which is, and only is, following what Jesus said by grace through faith.

          This doesn’t make one perfect either. People make mistakes and may have addictions to overcome, who may truly want to follow Christ. But this CANNOT be said about Hitler. He knew what he was doing and used religion AND Darwinian science, eugenics, philology, and German nationalist folklore to DUPE the people and make himself a god. It doesn’t matter what people thought he was, you cannot use Hitler to attack Christianity, anymore than I can use him to attack Darwinian theory and biology.

          There is nothing in Christ’s teachings that tell one to do what Hitler did, or to molest children. That is absolutely ridiculous. This is why your argument is totally fallacious.

          If anything, it should show us what a Christian is NOT, in spite of what they might profess to believe.

        • john zande says:

          I’m not arguing that Hitler was a good (or bad) Christian.

          I’m merely pointing out that all you are expressing here is YOUR opinion, and YOUR opinion, Mel, is in conflict with the opinion of other Christians. Right or wrong.

          This is an excerpt from a speech made by Hitler early in his career taken from a book called My New Order, a collection of some of the more significant speeches he made from 1922-1941 (edited by Raoul de Roussy and published by Reynal & Hitchcock).

          “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

          “In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

          “Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

          Opinion.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I might be disagreeing with what they thought about Hitler back then, but it’s not my opinion. It’s based on the clear teachings of Jesus. They might not have known any better in the 1930’s, but we know now without any doubt that Hitler’s actions contradicted Christ in every way. He was false. That’s why we cannot rightfully call him a Christian now.

        • john zande says:

          What about all the Evangelicals (80%) who voted just days ago for Roy Moore, the child molester?

          Are they false Christians, too?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Again, it was probably more politically or culturally motivated than anything else. And sexual offenders seem to abound on both sides of the aisle lately.

        • john zande says:

          So the “Christianity” of U.S. Evangelicals can be turned on and off depending on the circumstances at any given moment.

          I see.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, you don’t see. There are bad examples, false Christians, and good ones. There is the proverbial “tares” growing among the “wheat,” “sheep” and “goats,” etc. The New Testament is replete with warnings about “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” and knowing the difference between them and the real Jesus followers.

          You are trying to lump all people who profess to be Christians into one bag, which is both fallacious and dangerously false.

        • john zande says:

          There are bad examples

          No, they are very, very good examples. A “bad” example would be something not reflective the greater group. EIGHTY PERCENT, Mel, is reflective of that Christian group. The same applies to Hitler, whom the church, and Christian Germany, overwhelmingly supported.

          So, your opinion differs from theirs.

          That’s the beginning and the end of this discussion.

        • Nan says:

          Mel, you told John that he was trying to lump all people who profess to be Christians into one bag. You are correct in that many who “profess” Christianity are not True Christians.™ Nevertheless, since you were not living at the time of Hitler, you have no way of truly knowing whether he or any who professed Christianity during his reign were “good” or “bad” Christians. Your personal opinion is not the final word. And neither are the sources that support your view as there are other sources, as has already been pointed out, that conflict with those views.

          Further, essentially, even today you are “judging” when you make claims about who is a True Christian.™ I’m well aware of the scriptures surrounding this, but Jesus also said there is none good but one, that is God. Every person who claims the title of Christian is simply trusting s/he is “doing right” in God’s eyes.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Nevertheless, since you were not living at the time of Hitler, you have no way of truly knowing whether he or any who professed Christianity during his reign were “good” or “bad” Christians. Your personal opinion is not the final word.

          I have to respectfully disagree with this, Nan. What Jesus said about following Him is not my opinion here. You cannot match Hitler’s actions with Jesus’ words. And it doesn’t matter what time period we’re living in. Hitler was unquestionably evil and acting totally contrary to Christ’s teachings.

          But I will agree that many Christians who heard Hitler give his phony “Christian” sales pitch were fooled by him (before the war). Hitler may have even fooled himself, I don’t know that for certain, but he did make anti-Christian comments later in his life. But what Hitler actually was is not my opinion. And other German Christian leaders at the time, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, were not fooled by him at all. The Nazis eventually killed him because of this, but Bonhoeffer was proven right. So, it is fallacious to bring up Hitler to attack Christianity. It’s both an association fallacy and straw man. And my point in this post was that it would be just as fallacious to attack Darwinian natural selection and genetic biology by pointing to Aryan ideology and Nazi worldview. Both sides are making the same mistake. Again, the problem was Hitler and his evil ideology. Period.

          I’m well aware of the scriptures surrounding this, but Jesus also said there is none good but one, that is God. Every person who claims the title of Christian is simply trusting s/he is “doing right” in God’s eyes.

          I agree with that and I’m not arguing for Christian perfectionism. The core of Christianity is built on love and grace through faith. No one follows Christ perfectly or has perfect knowledge. But this is not what we’re talking about with Hitler. Quite the opposite. It’s wrong to simplistically say he was honestly mistaken. Again, maybe he was deluded himself, but we can know evil intent by judging the fruit of one’s actions. Jesus and the New Testament is very clear that simply saying you follow Christ doesn’t mean you actually do follow Christ. Jesus had nothing but contempt for some of the Pharisees because they hypocritically professed one thing and did something quite different. He said their father was the devil, not Abraham. And they were the religious leaders of His day. And it wasn’t just His subjective opinion. He was judging their fruit. You cannot divorce this critical discernment from determining what is “Christian” and what isn’t. You don’t have Christianity then. You can only rightly say that people like Hitler acted totally contrary to Christ’s teachings, not because of them. He was a false, anti-Christ imposter. And there’s a lot of things I will state are my opinion, but this is not one of them.

        • john zande says:

          Hitler was unquestionably evil and acting totally contrary to Christ’s teachings.

          Father Senn, writing in a Catholic publication, May 15, 1934:

          [Adolf Hitler is] the tool of God

          Opinions, they vary.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yes, and if he was still alive, I wonder what his opinion of Hitler was in 1945.

        • john zande says:

          Alternative history game!

          Okay… Imagine if the Nazi’s had won, because “God was with them!”

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, JohnZ, you are the one hypocritically playing a history game here. So, what if Hitler had won? Would the Catholic Church still support him, knowing what evil he had done? NO!!! That’s just idiotic.

          So, again, where are your quotes about Hitler from these same leaders after WWII? The point is, they were PROVEN WRONG about him, duped by his lies. This was an embarrassment for the Catholic Church, not some evidence of Hitler’s Christianity.

          And why don’t you quote Dietrich Bonhoeffer and other German leaders at the time who saw through his lies, Mr. Cherry-picker?

          Nothing like being a fallacious hypocrite. Stop wasting my time with this idiotic argument. Believe whatever dumb thing you want. It just won’t have any traction here.

        • john zande says:

          What’s hypocritical about providing quotes from church leaders and newspapers?

          Cardinal Adolf Bertram, Archbishop of Breslau, letter to Adolf Hitler following the announcement of the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican, July 22, 1933

          [I wish to express my church’s] sincere and joyous preparedness to cooperate as best they could with the government now ruling that had set itself that tasks of promoting the Christian education of the people, repelling ungodliness and immorality, developing readiness to make sacrifices for the common good and protecting the rights of the Church.

          Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Bavaria, praising Adolf Hitler for the Concordat, July 24, 1933

          What the old parliament and parties did not accomplish in sixty years, your statesmanlike foresight has achieved in six months. For Germany’s prestige in East and West and before the whole world this handshake with the Papacy, the greatest moral power in the history of the world, is a feat of immeasurable blessing. …May God preserve the Reich Chancellor for our people.

          Kirchenrat Julius Leutheuser, addressing German Christians in Saalfeld, August 30, 1933

          >The word “German” is God’s Word! Whosoever understands this is released from all theological conflicts. This is German: return home to Germany and leave behind egoism and your feelings of abandonment. …Christ has come to us through the person of Adolf Hitler. …Hitler has taken root in us; through his strength, through his honesty, his faith and his idealism we have found our way to paradise.

          I could post pages of other quotes, but this is also interesting. This is the Catholic theologian Joseph Lortz arguing via 5 points that “the basic kinship between National Socialism and Catholicism” was becoming evident to all Christians in Germany:

          (1) like the church, “National Socialism is essentially an opponent of Bolshevism, liberalism, [and] relativism.” It affirms what popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and Leo XIII explicitly taught: authentic civil authority is much more than the will of “the majority.”

          (2) like the church, “National Socialism is the declared opponent of the atheist movement and also of the lack of ethics in society.” Building on this healthy formation, the church can address “the great task of the present age: the creation of a new ‘Catholic human being’ who will replace the Sunday Catholic.” As Lortz saw it, this kind of cooperation between church and state occurred in Italy, where Pius XI and Mussolini initiated in 1931 collaboration between the Catholic youth organization and the state.

          (3) National Socialism and Catholicism affirm “the natural order of creation.” National Socialism is intent upon leading Germans back to their cultural and ethnic origins so that they may once again flourish as a people. Since Catholicism believes in the complementarity of nature and grace, it can endorse Nazi efforts in this regard and simultaneously build on this foundation while it focuses on the spiritual realm.

          (4) National Socialism and Catholicism hold that a society is not merely an association of individuals but rather a social unity in which individuals participate. Pius XI himself called for a corporatist society in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno.

          (5) National Socialism and Catholicism aim at overcoming modernity’s “spiritless intellectualism.” Both emphasize the “spiritual life” that undergirds intellectual inquiry.
          Finally, these five points indicate at National Socialism and Catholicism share a “kinship of essence.” For this reason, in relating to the Nazi state, the church should “work for the fulfillment of the genuine essence of National Socialism.”

          You see Mel, you have a pantomime view of history… and yet you have a front row seat to it happening right now in the US, with evangelicals getting all muddled in politics, supporting Republicans who’re about as close to evil (from an outsiders perspective) as a political party can get.

        • Mel Wild says:

          It’s hypocritical because you don’t quote German Christian leaders who saw through Hitler and condemned his actions. And who were killed by the Nazis for doing so.
          It’s hypocritical because you don’t quote what these same people you use as your proof thought about Hitler after WWII when they knew what he was really like.
          It’s hypocritical because you don’t use the same standard on the racist nut-jobs who used the Social Darwinism, Modern Anti-Semitism (based on science), and genetic biology of the early 20th Century to promote their Aryan lies.

          It appears JohnB is right about you. So, if you keep copying and pasting the same cherry-picked quotes again here, I will just delete them. You are the one promoting a pantomime here. You are nothing but a fallacious hypocrite.

        • john zande says:

          You’ve only named one, and what rank was he? I’m giving you actual church leaders, Cardinals and Bishops.

          But of course there must have been some opposed. 20% of Evangelicals didn’t vote for Roy Moore, the child molester. The fact remains, 80% of evangelicals voted for a child molester.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I’m not getting into a quoting match with you. That’s pointless.

          And what about these same Catholic leaders after the war, John? Where is that list approving of his actions and calling it “Christian”?

        • john zande says:

          If the Nazi’s had won, so too would have the church. History is written by the victors, as the saying goes.

        • Mel Wild says:

          That’s another fallacious lie. These Church leaders view of Hitler’s evil reign of terror would not based on who won the war! They were duped in the 30’s but they came to their senses after they found out what Hitler was really like.

        • john zande says:

          A fallacious lie… So you know how an alternative history would have played out, huh?

          As a side note, I see that Bonhoeffer’s family were aristocrats, with deep connections to the court of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Many elites opposed Hitler, he threatened their established (historical) order… So it appears your theologian might have been driven equally, if not more by economics and social status than theology.

        • john zande says:

          Fulda German Bishops’ Conference, Pastoral Letter, August 19, 1936: May God Help the Führer Succeed

          “[Germany must be made militarily stronger to ensure that not only would Europe be] cleansed from Bolshevism, but the entire rescued civilized world will be able to be thankful to us. …The task which this imposes upon our people and Fatherland follows as a matter of course. May our Führer, with God’s help, succeed in completing this terribly difficult undertaking with unshakable determination and faithful participating of allVolksgenossen.”

        • Mel Wild says:

          John, I only want to see quotes from these people from AFTER 1945. Still waiting….

        • john zande says:

          But again, I’m not arguing that Hitler was a good (or bad) Christian, simply that he (much like the child molester, Roy Moore) thought himself a very, very, very good Christian, and the church agreed.

          ” I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.”
          – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

        • Mel Wild says:

          These church leaders were deceived, but no one thought he was a Christian after they found out what he was up to, so your point is irrelevant to my post, and hypocritical.

        • john zande says:

          I’m starting to suspect you don’t know the meaning of the word, hypocritical.

          But carry on, if you want, regardless of the facts, and regardless that you are witnessing today a living example of how the religious swing. Roy Moore (who won 80% of the Evangelical vote) is that example… as too is Trump in the broader narrative, and he won 86% of the Evangelical vote.

          Somewhat reflective, wouldn’t you say, of Germany’s Christians in the 30’s and 40’s?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I know what it means, do you?

          These leaders were deceived and changed their view after finding what Hitler was actually like. What you don’t seem to get is that Hitler was a pathological liar, although a convincing one. But no reputable Hitler historian thinks he actually was a Christian.

          And should I start quoting popular thoughts on eugenics and how the Nazis used evolutionary natural selection and genetic biology in the 1930’s?

          Another thing, if someone grows up in a Christian home, deconverts at a young age and declares himself an atheist, and then goes on to kill over 60 million people and blows up churches like Stalin, does that make him a Christian?

          This and many other reasons is why your argument is still fallacious.

        • tildeb says:

          “And should I start quoting popular thoughts on eugenics and how the Nazis used evolutionary natural selection and genetic biology in the 1930’s?”

          Quoting other liars? How very helpful.

          You can’t ‘use’ natural selection, Mel (good grief, when, oh when, will you grasp this most simple of facts?); as soon as you try, you’re using ARTIFICIAL selection, which IS NOT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION! Why can’t you wrap your head around this essential fact? Why must you continue to spew lies about evolution based on your misconception of what it describes? I’ve presumed you have done so because you have not grasped the basic scientific idea that underlies all modern biology. That’s a product of your religious allegiance: ignorance. So I’ve explained it I don’t know how many times in how many ways yet you continue to display this mental inability to grasp the basics of modern biology, grasp this fundamental understanding. This mental block in maintaining ignorance and then championing it is what happens when you believe your religious ‘interpretation’ over and above actual knowledge; it makes you into a deceitful, arrogant, colossal fool determined to desperately hold the lie rather than allow truth to win out. That’s what your apologetics produces, Mel: deceit, arrogance, and colossal foolishness. And that’s what causes so much religiously inspired harm. You just close your eyes to it and decide to ‘interpret whatever you need to ‘interpret’ to disavow this obvious association.

        • Mel Wild says:

          You mean, other liars like Hitler, Tildeb? Not too hypocritical are you. Why can’t you grasp my point? So, you and Zande take Hitler’s word as a “Christian”(sic) but then they are liars if they claim Darwinian natural selection and genetics and anthropology for their Aryan racism? I see? No double-standard here! Right. Sorry, I’m not that stupid.

          So, if I’m telling lies, then why should we let you keep spewing lies about Christianity, Tildeb? You obviously know nothing about it because you believe Hitler was a Christian. And the Nazis were good scientists and biologists, too! Haha.

          Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for once. Tell me what did Hitler do that was actually “Christian?” What teaching of Christ was Hitler following when he gassed the Jews? Otherwise, you should keep your comments to yourself because you sound like an ignorant fool. If you don’t like evolutionary science perverted then stop perverting Christianity by using Hitler.

          Here’s the point. If you wish to associate Hitler with Christianity then, by your logic, we should equally associate him and his Nazi ideology with Darwinian natural selection, genetics, Philology and Anthropology. Because that was the core science behind his Aryan ideology. What you are unwilling to grasp is that it’s exactly the same perversion of these sciences as it is when you try to associate Hitler with Christianity. If you don’t like it, too bad. It’s the truth. You’ll just have to deal with the stubborn facts. And I can dig them out for you if you wish to remain stubbornly ignorant. But I’m not going to let you get away with your hypocrisy.

        • john zande says:

          Tell me what did Hitler do that was actually “Christian?” What teaching of Christ was Hitler following when he gassed the Jews?

          I’ve already shown you an example here. Do you not read? He used Jesus’ actions in the temple as his own inspiration.

          “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

          “In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

          “Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

          There, his won words, delivered in a speech… Jesus inspiring Hitler.

        • john zande says:

          Hardly, but carry on.

        • john zande says:

          A Jew (Werner Twertzog) wrote this a few days ago:

          “Dear America: You are waking up, as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches.”

        • JohnZ,

          Like the Romans (the Victors) almost always wrote or rewrote history in the 1st thru 4th century CE surrounding Jerusalem and the Levant — e.g. the victory and total obliteration of Masada and several near-extinct Jewish sects under Rome’s brutal justice(?) of the time as one such example — in the end, Greco-Roman socioreligious traditions won out over the real, pure doctrines (and attempts at Jewish reforms as Yeshua was a part) of the various Jewish sects and their manuscripts, e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran. The DSS are ironically the truer representations of Messianism and give a more complete picture of 1st century Jerusalem and the Syrian-Arabian Levant than the Romans wanted, particularly in the 4th century, and more particularly on a social-welfare basis the Roman provinces wanted to hijack as their own. Enter Emperor Constantine, the epitomy of Opportunist that laid the cornerstone for the Roman Catholic Church. Then the RCC eventually sought out and exterminated all heretical non-Greco-Roman forms of “deification.”

          I think it comes down to how far down the rabbit-holes and trails does one wish to go to find all possible truths, vice, and virtues of people, and of human behavior. I don’t see how religious ideologies play a singlular role in any of these debates. That seems to me to be gross oversimplification. But that’s my personal opinion, huh? 😉

        • Nan says:

          Thanks for your response, Mel, but a sermon wasn’t exactly what I was expecting. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised considering your “profession.”

          With all due respect.

  2. Eugenics was big at the time and pushed by all of the major sciences and too, even our own educational system here in the United States. In the case of Hitler, I see him more or less as a really normal guy in one way and in reference to a politician, as the Nazi party as nothing more than a criminal element that came to power. Many people are just as bad as they are—nothing special which is why we have restricted govt here or at least should.

    • Mel Wild says:

      Eugenics is a good point to bring up. It was one of the advances that came from genetics and natural selection that went terribly wrong. And religion had absolutely nothing to do with it! 🙂

      But you’re right, the Nazis were racist criminals who gained political power through intimidation and subterfuge. This is good reason for limited government, as we have in the US and other democracies in the world, with lots of checks and balances. If we get a bad leader here, he or she can be thrown out in four years or sooner!

  3. john zande says:

    No, Hitler is not a “bit of an enigma.”

    He was a Christian, he thought himself a very, very good Christian, and many church leaders (including Cardinals, Bishops, priests) agreed… especially agreeing with his brutal clampdown on atheism.

    The only thing in play here is your opinion of what a “good Christian” looks like. And I’ll give you a working example: Roy Moore, a man so vile he was banned from shopping malls for preying on little children. Roy Moore is a very, very good Christian… according to many evangelicals. Indeed, Roy Moore, the child molester, garnered 80% of the Evangelical vote.

    80%.

    You see, it’s all a matter of opinion.

    • Mel Wild says:

      He was a Christian, he thought himself a very, very good Christian, and many church leaders (including Cardinals, Bishops, priests) agreed…

      Then you’re a bigger fool than they were, because they didn’t know what Hitler was really up to, but you do. Or, you’re just as deluded as Hitler was if you think for a minute that He actually was a Christian. He was a Christian like the devil is a Christian.

      The only thing in play here is your opinion of what a “good Christian” looks like.

      No, it’s not a matter of opinion, JohnZ. Saying you’re a Christian, quoting the Bible, or belonging to a particular church, does NOT make you a Christian at all! Satan quoted the Bible to Jesus. It’s what you DO that proves whether you’re a Christian or not.

      6 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? (Luke 6:46)

      18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. (Matt.7:18-20)

      21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven….23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Matt.7:12,23)

      3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. (1 John 2:3-4)

      We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. (1 John 4:19-20)

      No, it’s not a matter of opinion, JohnZ. It’s a stubborn fact. Hitler was a liar and an anti-Christ. His ideology was based in early 20th Century scientism (like yours) and pagan folklore. Those people who thought he was a Christian were fools. And you’re a bigger fool for believing his propaganda and lies after the fact. If you were in Germany in the 1930’s you no doubt would be in the crowd shouting, “Zeig Heil!

      • John Branyan says:

        Mel,

        The Windbag is not capable of understanding any of this.
        You are literally trying to reason with thin air.

      • john zande says:

        No, it’s not a matter of opinion, JohnZ.

        Yes, it is… and I even gave you a working, contemporary example: Roy Moore, a man so vile he was banned from shopping malls for preying on little children.

        Roy Moore thinks he is a very, very good Christian… and the overwhelming majority of evangelicals agree.

        By exit polling in the recent election, Roy Moore, the child molester, garnered 80% OF THE EVANGELICAL VOTE.

        80%.

        So, you see… It’s just a matter of opinion.

        And here’s another working example: Cleric Raymond of Aguilers. Celebrating the aftermath of the storming of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099, Aguilers gleefully remarked:

        “In the temple of Solomon, one rode in blood up to the knees and even to the horses’ bridles, by the just and marvellous judgment of God.”

        Was the good cleric being a good Christian in this instance? He’d think so, and so too would most in that day.

        And another working example: the KKK. The byline on the Christian KKK’s website reads:

        Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!

        Good Christians? They certainly think so.

        As I stated earlier, the only thing in play here is your opinion of what a “good Christian” looks like.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, here we go. Let’s divert the conversation from Hitler and bring up the favorite anti-Christian talking points again.

          JohnZ, you’re a fool. There’s no point taking to you. And your comments are only proving it to be an empirical fact.

        • john zande says:

          I’m not diverting anything. I am stating a truth, with EVIDENCE to support it.

          I’m even giving working examples of just how this works:

          Roy Moore (a man so vile he was banned from shopping malls for preying on little children) thinks he is a very, very good Christian… and the overwhelming majority of evangelicals agree.

          Roy Moore, the child molester, won 80% OF THE EVANGELICAL VOTE.

          80%.

          So, you see… It’s just a matter of opinion.

    • JohnZ,

      Didn’t the Knights Templars think/boast they were “good Christians” as well, willing to slaughter Muslims? That’s a sincere question btw. And now that I think about it, history is rife with self-righteous violent proclaimers of all sorts of “Creeds”! LOL

      • Mel Wild says:

        @ Professor Taboo.
        From what I understand about the Knights Templar is that the Pope guaranteed their salvation by fighting in the Crusades. This is actually more like Islamic Jihad than Christianity, but that’s how they thought back then. What they did to the Muslims and the Jews in the name of Christ during the Crusades was inexcusable and evil.

      • john zande says:

        Well, the first Christian crusade was not against Muslims, but against a sect of Christians, Albigenses, who were deemed heretics. And of course, in 1204, the third Crusade armies from the Western Church dropped in to say Hello to their eastern friends in Constantinople, the capital of Christianity… Killing everyone and destroying the city.

        • Ah! That’s right, the Albigenses. Another Messianic/Christian varient (of many) that didn’t “align” with Rome. All of this dissension and heresy and murdering/genocide begs the question… is this behavior (or lack of) about a greater good or is it about the cradle of power known as Rome and its Church and then all its Abrahamic offsprings? A whole lotta HATE going around, huh!? 😉

  4. tildeb says:

    “But we could just as easily turn that argument on its head and say that Hitler was a product of the positivist Darwinian ideology of the early 20th century.”

    Will mt comment ever see the light of day on your blog?

    This statement of yours is more than just flat out wrong: it is intentionally deceitful. If you understood what evolution means (and you obviously still don’t get it) rather than set out to malign it at every opportunity by lying about it you would never utter such idiocy as the above statement. It so wrong it’s not even wrong. So back to basics for you, Mel:

    evolution: natural, unguided changes to life (allele frequencies in a population) over time.
    Eugenics: propagating artificially selected traits

    The latter does not come from the former, Mel. It’s idiotic to think it does. In fact, it is OPPOSITE to it.

    Duh.

    To blame Darwin’s observation of and explanation for NATURAL selection for the rise of eugenics and what the apolgetic religious disinformation specialists love to tout as causal to malign non believers with this disgusting and deceitful smear reveals the depth of ignorance and stupidity and maliciousness that resides at the heart of every apologist aimed squarely at misrepresenting the science of biology in the service of pretending to be pious and righteous. What you’ve done is misrepresent Huxley by misunderstanding his criticism of those idiots who thought survival of the fittest was about individual brutality and strength versus fitness understood in Darwinian terms: reproductive success into the second generation. Huxley wrote an entire book about this very point. And that’s why it’s important to grasp that we have indisputable evidence Churchill read Darwin but we have no evidence Hitler ever did. This link to eugenics Hitler and Braun advocated for as somehow coming from Darwinian sources demonstrates the depth of deceit necessary to overlook Hitler’s Catholic upbringing and vocal support and try to make this square peg fit into the round hole of atheism to make it try to appear what it isn’t: a brutality based on accepting evolutionary theory. It is disgustingly dishonest.

    • Mel Wild says:

      And, as always, you totally missed the point. Tildeb. Did you actually read what I said? Or do you just blather on? My point was, that’s why it would be just as idiotic for you to blame Christianity for Hitler. Of course, we cannot blame evolution or eugenics for Hitler. That was my point. Sheesh!

      I’m not misrepresenting anybody. I’m saying that Hitler and the Nazis used these scientific advances for their evil ends, just like Hitler used religion in the early years to gain favor with the Christian German nation. It was all lies and deceit.

      But to say that Darwinian theory had no place in Aryan (genetically-based) ideology, Modern Anti-Semitism, Racism in the 19th and early 20th century, or the actual experimental practices conducted on the Jews, including children, by the Nazis during their reign of terror is just outright stupid to the nth degree!

      “Based on Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection, this ideology relied on common theories prevelent in Europe since the 19th Century.” (Key Historical Concepts in Holocaust Education: Race Doctrine)

      It is disgustingly dishonest.

      Well, you’re disgustingly ignorant. I think you should educate yourself on the facts.

    • Mel Wild says:

      To blame Darwin’s observation of and explanation for NATURAL selection for the rise of eugenics and what the apolgetic religious disinformation specialists love to tout as causal to malign non believers with this disgusting and deceitful smear reveals the depth of ignorance and stupidity and maliciousness that resides at the heart of every apologist aimed squarely at misrepresenting the science of biology in the service of pretending to be pious and righteous.

      Again, you totally missed my point about Darwin, but what’s funny about your statement is it’s this kind of “smearing” that’s exactly what your fellow anti-Christian apologist and misinformation specialist, JohnZ, is trying to do by associating the evil Hitler did with Christianity. Not too hypocritical, are you.

      • john zande says:

        JohnZ, is trying to do by associating the evil Hitler did with Christianity.

        No, I’m not. Nice straw man, though.

        As already stated, I’m not arguing that Hitler was a good (or bad) Christian.I’m merely pointing out that all you are expressing here is YOUR opinion, and YOUR opinion, Mel, is in conflict with the opinion of other Christians. Right or wrong. Hitler thought himself a very, very, very good Christian, and many, many, many Christians agreed.

        Their opinion

        • Mel Wild says:

          So, you don’t believe that Christianity itself can be blamed or tied to Hitler’s actions?

          And, AGAIN, it’s not MY opinion if I am giving you what Jesus actually quite clearly said! Why don’t you get this?

        • john zande says:

          “God is with us” (GOTT MIT UNS) was stamped on every Nazi’s belt buckle.

          You decide.

          And of course, I’ve already shown you a speech made by Hitler where he professes to be continuing Jesus’s work.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Again, irrelevant. “In God we trust” on US money; it means about as much. Nothing at all.

          John, please get this. If you believe anything Hitler said, you are as much of a dupe as the people he said it to originally.

        • john zande says:

          “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.”

          Opinions, they vary.

      • tildeb says:

        His scapegoating of Jews was (and can still found in some sects) a central pillar of the Christian doctrine for well over a millennium. You can’t pretend this religious doctrine had no affect on a person like Hitler or Stalin born and bred in the faith. This IS a causal factor not just for Hitler’s but Stalin’s treatment of Jews and it is endemic throughout all countries with significant Christian populations. There remains more hate crimes directed at Jews in Western countries than any other identifiable minority. The Christian faith has much to do with this.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I am fully aware of Replacement Theology. Tildeb. They did scapegoat the Jews and called them “Christ killers”, and there was the Inquisition and Pogroms in Medieval Europe that propagated this lie. But the point is, it was a lie. This is why my Jewish friends in Israel, who believe in Jesus, don’t call themselves Christians. This faulty belief was also pointed out on the video. What you are doing is pointing to a “religious” belief based on a poisonous false doctrine, not on good Christology. Yes, this false doctrine of hate did affect Hitler. But so did the prevalent social Darwinism of his time, and his perverted use of natural selection and genetics to promote the Aryan myth. So, are we going to equally blame science then? Or do you only point your hypocritical attacks at bad uses of Christianity?

          And Stalin rejected his Christianity at a young age and tried to remove Christianity altogether from Russia during his reign of terror. In other words, he was actually an angry anti-Christian deconvert. So, again, do you want to pretend this isn’t true and continue being a total hypocrite, or do you want to stop with your fallacious argumentation?

        • tildeb says:

          Again, Mel, you interpret whatever you find you have to interpret to come to the preordained conclusion you want. This is not what honest people do.

          Hitler WAS Catholic. Stalin WAS Russian Orthodox. These are facts skewed by your interpretation to become falsely equivalent causes for their latter brutality you need to associate with atheism. It’s dishonest to the bone.

          Evolution has nothing to do with eugenics. Social Darwinian is a misnomer you continue to spread rather than correct. These are facts skewed by your interpretation to become falsely equivalent causes for latter brutality you need to associate with atheism. It’s dishonest to the bone.

          And then continue to avoid any religious responsibility misrepresenting these facts because, as facts that do not comport to your interpretation, are what’s biased because they are not interpreted ‘properly’.

          For crying out loud, Mel, you can’t turn a Jew-hating, hate-spewing Martin Luther into an atheist – the very Father of your brand of Christianity but someone absolutely typical in his Christianity to find a welcoming audience for his religiously motivated Jewish hatred. But what you try to do is pretend no one motivated by religious teachings to hate, to commit atrocities in the name of piety to the Christian god, could possibly be associated with your brand of Christianity because – Lo and Behold! – none of them interpreted your brand of Christianity ‘properly’.

          And you think you have a reasonable argument! Well, you do if your dishonesty and disrespect for what’s true, what are facts, what is historically valid, are only mere but justifiable interpretations equivalent to any other personal belief that does not align with reality. Reality is not determined by your ‘proper’ interpretation but is badly skewed of its truth value when subject to your interpretation. Your personal belief does not reflect what is knowable or true. Quite the opposite, and claiming the opposite is valid because you have ‘properly’ interpreted it is a guaranteed way to fool yourself and anyone else who goes along with your right to interpret facts as being biased.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Hitler WAS Catholic. Stalin WAS Russian Orthodox. These are facts skewed by your interpretation to become falsely equivalent causes for their latter brutality you need to associate with atheism. It’s dishonest to the bone.

          Tildeb, you are not above skewing yourself. Do you actually know history, or do you just make anti-Christian nonsense up as you go?

          “Hitler was a Catholic.” WRONG!

          “Hitler was born to a practicing Catholic mother, and was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church. In 1904, acquiescing to his mother’s wishes.

          But….

          “…the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious and anti-Christian. In light of evidence such as his 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.” (Wikipedia)

          Stalin was Russian Orthodox. WRONG!

          Stalin was a DECONVERT from Russian Orthodoxy.

          Stalin was baptised on 17 December [1878]

          But…

          As he grew older, Stalin lost interest in his studies; his grades dropped, and he was repeatedly confined to a cell for his rebellious behaviour.[41] Teachers complained that he declared himself an atheist, chatted in class and refused to doff his hat to monks. (Wikipedia)

          The USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941 was a new phase of anti-religious persecution in the Soviet Union following the anti-religious campaign of 1921–1928. The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for a heightened attack on religion in order to further disseminate atheism. This had been preceded in 1928 at the fifteenth party congress, where Joseph Stalin criticized the party for failure to produce more active and persuasive anti-religious propaganda. This new phase coincided with the beginning of the forced mass collectivization of agriculture and the nationalization of the few remaining private enterprises.

          Stalin called for an “atheist five year plan” from 1932–1937, led by the LMG, in order to completely eliminate all religious expression in the USSR. It was declared that the concept of God would disappear from the Soviet Union.

          Btw, atheist Stalin blew up or closed 54,000 churches and is estimated to have killed over 60 million people.

          So, no, Tildeb, you couldn’t be more wrong. Your skewed view of history is what’s completely biased. I admit that people like Martin Luther were anti-Semitic and other atrocities in the name of Christianity. But they were doing this in opposition to Christ’s teachings. But the fact that you can’t admit that the Nazis used Darwisism and genetic biology as a pretext to promote their Aryan myth either makes you a disingenuous hypocrite or an ignorant fool.

        • john zande says:

          I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

          – Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941

        • Mel Wild says:

          Which was a LIE!

        • john zande says:

          That’s YOUR opinion, Mel.

          And it is an opinion flatly contradicted by the testimony on Cardinals and Bishops and priests and religious organisations.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, it’s not my opinion. They might’ve thought that about Hitler in the 1930’s but found out they were wrong.

        • tildeb says:

          Just like it’s not opinion that you are a deceitful peddler of apologetic lies about evolution… once you finally understand the error of your ways and stop doing that. Why, it’s almost like you never were a good Christian apologist at all but that other’s simply ‘interpreted’ your position that you were incorrectly.

          Good grief, the errors in your thinking ability continue to astound me.

        • john zande says:

          Opinion… Just like you fellow Evangelical’s who today overwhelmingly support a child molester, overwhelmingly support Trump. It’s all opinion.

        • john zande says:

          And why did you delete my quote? It was written by a Jew just days ago, and strikes to the heart of this subject.

          It is a contemporary example, Mel… Does that bother you?

          “Dear America: You are waking up, as Germany once did, to the awareness that 1/3 of your people would kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches.”
          -Werner Twertzog

        • john zande says:

          My apologies, you didn’t delete it. It just got lost in another thread.

        • tildeb says:

          You may not know this, Mel, but you pay taxes to the Church of your parents. Hitler, as I said, WAS Catholic and Stalin WAS Russian Orthodox. You ‘interpret’ this to be meaningless. It wasn’t. This upbringing had an affect… or do you think Hitler’s anti-Jewish position simply fell from the sky, that Russian pogroms magically targeted Jews?

          Your interpretation continues in that you ignore Hitler’s wartime formative life that seems to have affected him the same way it has affected millions of soldiers: an irreligious outcome because they know damned well a bullet or shell does not care what it destroys or whom it kills no matter how much praying or piety the victim has. So you bet neither leader was inspired to absolute power by following Christian precepts but each learned from Christian precepts how to gain and hold absolute power. That’s what religiou belief teaches: how to submit, how to self-loath, how to justify atrocity in the name of some greater piety to some godly authority. That’s why the argument for Divine Command Theory (a favourite of one of your saintly academic heroes, apologist extraordinaire WL Craig let us never forget) is identical in principle and practice to Himmler’s speech to the SS in Warsaw to those soldiers tasked with carrying out their Dear Leader’s Jewish extermination commands. It’s the same reasoning, the same justification, the practice learned from religious precepts to those with eyes that see and ears that hear: one clothed in priestly garb, the other in black uniform.

          So yes, Mel, I know my history and I know the essential role religion has played in Europe’s… just like I know that your anti-scientific blather against Darwin and his remarkable theory is religious moaning poofing into existence some historical revisionism you then try to ‘interpret’ against that which nullifies your need to believe in special creationism of humans… all to serve YOUR warped and skewed sense of piety and further your deceitful religious agenda. It’s all about you, Mel.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Tildeb, since you can’t seem to grasp my point, how can I reason with you?

          For instance, when was I making an anti-science statement? I was saying that it was a fallacious argument to blame science for what Hitler did, just like your “Christian” argument is fallacious. Hitler used BOTH perverted versions of science and perverted versions of Christianity to propagate his evil agenda because HE was evil.

          I’m not ignoring Hitler’s wartime experience or role that anti-Semitic Christian (sic) views in Europe had on him. But you are ignoring the role bad 19th century science had on his development of Aryan racism and justification for exterminating the Jews.

          And let me ask you, did the bad science of the 19th and early 20th Centuries that the Nazis most certainly seized upon as a pretext to justify their Aryan racism just drop out of the sky? Where did Hitler get the idea that the strong races must rule and weak must submit? He didn’t get it from the Bible! He got it from 19th Century biologists like Herbert Spencer who helped develop scientifically-based racism. Or, Arthur de Gobineau’s book, “The Inequality of Human Races,” that was based on research in philology and anthropology, not Christianity. Gobineau wasn’t appealing to the Bible but science for his perverted conclusions, and he could be called the father of Aryan racism. And what about Francis Galton’s use of Eugenics to develop the idea that society should manipulate the propagation of certain desirable traits in humans and eliminate the negative ones. Did Hitler’s use of his theories to promote not mixing races (“Nuremberg Law” forbidding mixed race marriages) just drop out of the sky? No! This modern Anti-Semitism was based on a perverted use of science, not just bad religion.

          Again, I am not making an argument against actual science. I’m trying to show you that Hitler used bad science JUST like he did bad Christian doctrines. Sure, Luther’s anti-Semitism was influential, but so were these other people I mentioned equally so. You can’t just pluck Christianity out of the mixed bag that created the Nazi worldview. That’s dishonest and hypocritical.

          If you cannot equally be honest about this, then I have no reason to listen to your fallacious arguments against Christianity.

  5. John Branyan says:

    Hey Mel,

    For what it’s worth, the Windbag is correct. He said:
    “As already stated, I’m not arguing that Hitler was a good (or bad) Christian.I’m merely pointing out that all you are expressing here is YOUR opinion, and YOUR opinion, Mel, is in conflict with the opinion of other Christians. Right or wrong. Hitler thought himself a very, very, very good Christian, and many, many, many Christians agreed.”

    He is exactly right.
    I’m merely pointing out that JZ is expressing HIS opinion and HIS opinion is in conflict with the opinion of other people. Right or wrong. JZ thinks himself a very, very, very good thinker and many, many, many atheists agree. Their opinion.

    The atheist realm of thought does not extend past the confines of their own skulls. When your only criterion for truth is your own opinion then you’ll be correct every single time.

    Congratulations, Windbag! You’re right again!

  6. Scottie says:

    Hello Mel. I read through this all and what stands out to me is that you are taking the authority to declare who is a christian on yourself. Regardless of what it is based on, the fruits or your branch of the religious tree, you are giving yourself the right to pass judgement on all the other people calling themselves christian. Regardless if I call myself a christian of the tree of life cult you your opinion of my personal claim is superior to my own. OK, fine in some way we all do that in every aspect of every club in every claim. So and SO just doesn’t measure up according to the other so or so. This was something going on in every church I sat in as a young person. There were groups and cliques. Each thought they were better representatives of the lord than the other. It does all come down to opinion. Yours, mine , all the others. So if you claim that right so does every other person in and out of the group. It all comes down to my opinion of your actions, character, or how I think you believe. Sadly there is clear evidence of this going on right now in our country. All of us here have hung our heads at those we see standing firmly with their tribe despite claims of morality and the clear lack of it. So I once was being pestered by “christians” in the army who were determined to save my gay soul. Finally my friends and I devised a way to stop them from constantly harassing me. We formed our own religion. The House of Athena. Great religion and when the “christians” again started to gather round me and pray for me and tell me of their god, I told them of my own religion. Agreed to share with them theirs of they would share mine with me. They were overjoyed I had seen the light until I got my chance to tell them my religion. They were dismayed at what I thought was a God, who I worshiped, what practices we had. I felt the same about theirs. We agreed to ignore each other after that. See my point Mel? Hugs

    • Mel Wild says:

      Hi Scottie. The only point I was making was whether Hitler was actually a Christian. I’m not judging all Christians. My point about Hitler is not based on my opinion but on Jesus’ teachings of what it means to follow Him. Hitler clearly was not, according to Jesus. There is nothing Hitler did that could remotely be called “Christian.” What he was using the worst possible, hateful teachings by Christians as a pretext to commit the most evil atrocities in modern times. But he also appealed to the same kinds of perversion of science to create his Aryan master-race, as I told Tildeb. So, I don’t think I’m trying to make myself superior to everyone else nor am I commenting on other religions. I’m simply discerning something fairly obvious. If one is to call themselves a “Christian” it’s pretty clear what Jesus said it should look like. One is not a Christian based on what they say, or what church they may attend, or what Cardinal thinks they’re wonderful, but on actually following Jesus; otherwise, it’s something else made up that doesn’t look like what Jesus said.

      Following Jesus, according to Jesus, is not subjective thing. It’s very simple and clear. But that doesn’t mean people who follow Him are perfectly following Him either. I’m not saying that. Christianity is built on love and grace through faith. But Hitler clearly wasn’t even following Him at all. His was an evil perversion and a pretense to gain support in Christian Europe. There are no reputable Hitler historians who think Hitler was sincerely a Christian.

      Having said that, I agree that there are very bad representations of Christianity in history and continuing today…wars, atrocities, racism, anti-Semitism, all done in the name of Christ. These things are so evil because they pretend to be good. But they don’t represent the Jesus they claim.

      I’m not judging people’s hearts but their fruit. Jesus told us we could tell whether someone is true or false by their fruit. Everything about Hitler’s fruit was evil. I really don’t care what he claimed he was. It was obviously all a lie.

      I’m sorry about your experience with Christians, Scottie. As it’s been said, the only trouble with Christianity is the Christians. 🙂
      Have a wonderful Holiday season. Hugs back.

      • Scottie says:

        Hello Mel. Thank you for your response. I have to disagree with you based on your own words. You are using a subjective judgement based on your view of what Jesus is all about and what is not acting like your Jesus. You are in fact judging other christians actions based on your view of what is the correct way to act according to your view of what Jesus wants. Sadly we know that it is your view because if not there wouldn’t be thousands of different sects of christianity, each thinking they have the best view of Jesus and what Jesus would want for actions. Think of every small group such as the Branch Davidians who called themselves christians and based their actions on their personal view of what that meant.

        I am not saying you are wrong to have your opinion. That is sort of an American right. I am not saying you are wrong to base your judgement of who is a “real” christian to you based on your views. I only want you to acknowledge that it is based on your opinion and not some objective undisputed carved on the sun fact. Because every other person is making the same judgements based on their view of the same facts and not all are the same, so they can’t all be based on the unchanging truth.

        To Hitler. I was not going to add more because I felt it had already been worked over but maybe it will help you to understand where I am coming from on this. Hitler may not have been a good christian from your view, and maybe even now more think he was not a good christian. It is a fact that then, and is now also, some seen him & his actions in a good christian light. Hard to dispel that some people felt it was christian to get rid of Jewish people. Blame the Jews. Now today most christians and others not christian think it is horrible. But some felt at the time and also now that it was christian by their view of what Jesus was / wants / and stands for. Again personal views based on personal beliefs.

        Thanks for the holidays wishes and you and yours have a great one. Hugs

        • Mel Wild says:

          Scottie, you are certainly free to disagree with me. 🙂

          Let me first say that I agree that many THOUGHT Hitler was a good Christian in the 1930’s. He talked a good game and was a slick politician. But no sane person thought he was a Christian after they found out what he was actually up to.

          Let me try to make my point another way. There are things that are not subjective about what it means to follow Christ. There can be good or bad Christians who are genuinely following Him. But it is not judgmental or merely a subjective opinion to say that what Hitler did does not represent Christianity at all. IF we say we’re following Christ, then Jesus said we will do what He said, not pretend to be Christian and do something else. Everything Hitler did stands in stark contrast to Christ.

          My stubbornness here is that anti-Christian atheists try to accociate Hitler with Christianity. That is a fallacious argument. By that same logic, I should then associate Dr. Josef Mengele, who conducted some of the most horrific experiments on humans in history, with medical science. That would be fallacious and unfair. Yet, that’s exactly what people like JohnZ are trying to do by bringing up that Hitler was a Christian. Well, Josef Mengele was a medical physician. Should we associate medical science with Josef Mengele? Of course not.

          One last point. I do agree that there are harmful Christian beliefs in the world, and they still exist today. But that doesn’t make Christianity itself harmful. And most Christians don’t represent that harmful and hateful segment of the whole. And evil in the world won’t go away by getting rid of Christianity or religion. It will just take other forms, because the only common denominator, throughout all human history, is evil human beings acting out their malicious intent.

          We probably won’t agree but that’s fine. I just want you to understand my point. Be blessed.

        • Scottie says:

          Mel I do understand your point. IN fact in your response you addressed issues I did not being up nor intend. I am not hanging Hitler on Christian necks. I do not claim that anyone today needs to atone for the acts they personally did not do. I do not visit the sins of the fathers on to the sons, that is someone else. I agree humans act as they will because I don’t believe in gods or devils, but people can be influenced by what they think maybe in the supernatural realm, gods or devils they have heard about prior.

          Your comment

          I do agree that there are harmful Christian beliefs in the world, and they still exist today.

          that is the whole point I was trying to make back to you Mel. There are so many christian sects who vilify the other sects as not true christians. Matt Dillahunty has a rather famous line I will paraphrase to save space, where he says if you want to know what is wrong with one christian group simply ask the other christin group, they all think the other is wrong. How many times in the deep south have I heard the catholics are not really christians. So my point is You are deciding what is a true christian by your standards, and the others will do so according to their view of their standards. We have people claiming to be great christians who are white supremacists and say that God wanted what they believe, and they must be correct about race as their christian god in their view proclaims it in his bible. To you they may not be true christians, but to them you are not a true christian either. Hey got to go eat. Be well. Hugs

        • Scottie, all very good points and questions and relevant to this subject, then and now. 🙂

        • john zande says:

          Yet, that’s exactly what people like JohnZ are trying to do by bringing up that Hitler was a Christian.

          With all due respect, but fuck off, Mel.

          I didn’t bring Hitler up. I believe it was you, in another post… and now again here. And if you didn’t make fallacious arguments, I wouldn’t have to correct you.

          So, the moral of the story… Don’t make fallacious arguments.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I didn’t bring Hitler up. I believe it was you, in another post… and now again here.

          No, you brought up Luther’s anti-Semitism first, then proceeded to tell me that Hitler was a “good Christian.” That was the whole point of the argument, which led me to correct your fallacious notion with this post. Here’s the original thread.
          https://melwild.wordpress.com/2017/12/08/who-is-delusional/comment-page-1/#comment-14709

          So, JohnZ, why did you bring this up if you weren’t trying to associate the worst examples of Christianity and Hitler to what Christianity is. With all due respect, you are being disingenuous here. You know darn well why you bring this garbage up.

          And if you didn’t make fallacious arguments, I wouldn’t have to correct you.

          So, exactly what fallacy was I committing here? I said that to associate Hitler with authentic Christianity IS an association fallacy and a straw man. No sane person thinks Hitler was a Christian after what he did. So, according to your logic, Josef Mengele was a good medical scientist. LOL!

        • john zande says:

          As I recall, you brought up Stalin (as a fallacious argument) in that thread with someone else. Then you tried to claim Hitler was an atheist, like Stalin. That’s when I popped in to set you straight: Hitler was a Christian. I have never claimed Hitler was a good Christian. I have only ever stated that Hitler believed himself to be a very, very, very good Christian, and church leaders agreed.

        • john zande says:

          And reason why you’re ignoring my answer to your question: Tell me what did Hitler do that was actually “Christian?” What teaching of Christ was Hitler following when he gassed the Jews?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Because you didn’t answer it, as I have explained to you in my other comment.

        • john zande says:

          Yes, it did answer it.

          Hitler was INSPIRED by Jesus’ actions, his deeds.

        • john zande says:

          You see, this is what makes you so disingenuous, Mel. When shown (politely, mind you) to be wrong, you double-down instead of simply saying, “OK, I didn’t know Hitler had said that. I disagree with his interpretation of Jesus’ actions in the temple, but yes, you’re right, I stand corrected.”

          What do you think, if you wrote something like that I’d jump all over you, hollering “Nah nah nah nah!” ? Listen, I understand most Evangelicals have been fed a smorgasbord of lies, about a host of subjects, including Hitler, so I actually want to try and lift you from your state of appalling ignorance… without causing any unnecessary embarrassment.

          So, when YOU wrote the stement below on another post, YOU started this, Mel. You.

          Again, if we use YOUR logic, we will associate anti-Christian anti-theism with Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-un, All of these are anti-Christian dictators who have tried to stamp out Christianity and religion in general.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Being disingenuous? Look in mirror, my friend.

        • john zande says:

          By all means, show me where I have faulted. If I have stumbled I will admit it. I have no problem doing so.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Haha…that’s rich. So you’re deluded, too?
          I’m done here.

        • john zande says:

          So, I called your bluff, huh.

        • john zande says:

          Here are your exact (factually wrong) words:

          Again, if we use YOUR logic, we will associate anti-Christian anti-theism with Stalin, Hitler, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-un, All of these are anti-Christian dictators who have tried to stamp out Christianity and religion in general.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Where did I say Hitler was an atheist here? I’ve said from the beginning that Stalin was an atheist and Hitler was anti-Christian. He may have considered himself a “Christian” (unlike Stalin) but he wasn’t. It was a ruse to dupe Christian Europe, which worked in the 1930’s, anyway.

          Here’s what the historians says about Hitler:

          “…the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious and anti-Christian. In light of evidence such as his 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….

          Hitler, attempting to appeal to the German masses during his political campaign and leadership, sometimes made declarations in support of religion and against atheism. He stated in a speech that atheism (a concept he linked with Communism and “Jewish materialism”) had been “stamped out”, and banned the German Freethinkers League in 1933. Hitler was born to a practising Catholic mother, and was baptised in the Roman Catholic Church. In 1904, acquiescing to his mother’s wish, he was confirmed at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Linz, Austria, where the family lived.

          Indeed, Hitler held Jesus in high esteem as an “Aryan fighter” who struggled against “the power and pretensions of the corrupt Pharisees” and Jewish materialism. While a small number of writers accept his publicly stated views as genuine expressions of his spirituality, the vast majority believe that Hitler was skeptical of churches generally – although he “freely acknowledged the religious needs of the masses” – but recognized that he could only be elected and preserve his political power if he feigned a commitment to and belief in Christianity, which the overwhelming majority of Germans believed in. Hitler himself told confidants that his reluctance to make public attacks on the Church was not a matter of principle, but a pragmatic political move. In his private diaries, Goebbels wrote in April 1941 that though Hitler was “a fierce opponent” of the Vatican and Christianity, “he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons.”

          Although he was prepared to delay conflicts for political reasons, historians conclude that he ultimately intended the destruction of Christianity in Germany, or at least its distortion or subjugation to a Nazi outlook.” (Wikipedia)

          It’s time you stopped being so disingenuous about your motives and told the whole truth about Hitler, JohnZ, instead of sounding like a Nazi propagandist.

          But believe whatever myth you want about Hitler, it just won’t work here. I think I’ve spent enough time on this nonsense.

        • john zande says:

          Hitler was anti-Christian…. being INSPIRED by Jesus’s action.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Wrong. He was only inspired by His own evil hatred.

          So, where did Jesus say to exterminate the Jews? Hmmmm? You know, you can say whatever you want. It doesn’t mean you’re making a coherent statement with any resemblance to the truth.

        • john zande says:

          Wrong.

          “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
          “In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

          There, his own words, Jesus inspiring Adolf Hitler… Adolf Hitler acting as he saw Jesus act.

        • Mel Wild says:

          And your a total dupe for believing his lies. Did you actually read what the historians said about Hitler in my other comment, or do you just go on like automaton skewing out pro-Hitler copy and paste propaganda?

        • john zande says:

          Are you denying Jesus took to the temple merchants with violence?

        • Mel Wild says:

          So that makes Him a Jew hater? Nothing like totally taking something out of context!

          As I already told you, if you bothered to read what I said, is that Jesus’ only anger was against the hypocrisy and injustice of the religious leaders, not with the Jews (or anyone) in general.

          So, no, this doesn’t qualify to justify anti-Semitism.

        • john zande says:

          Mel, I’m not saying I agree with Hitler… I am simply showing you that Hitler stated he was acting in accord with Jesus, and he gave that example.

          So, Hitler’s opinion of that event (if it happened) differs from yours.

          As I’ve been at pains to tell you: it’s all opinion.

        • Mel Wild says:

          But he was clearly either being deceptive or totally deluded. History has proven that beyond a shadow of doubt, as I have taken pains to get you to see. Hitler was no Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. Historians (as I have quoted) agree with me on this. Jesus’ own teaching contradict him in every way. Hitler perverted what Christianity is because of his evil intent. He was no more Christian that the devil is Christian.

        • john zande says:

          But he was clearly either being deceptive or totally deluded.

          That’s your opinion. You’re entitled to it, but you don’t get to impose it as some sweeping truth. It’s not. It’s your opinion. It differs from the opinion of others… Including the founder of your own Christian branch.

        • Mel Wild says:

          My opinion? No, it’s not, John! Sheesh! I will not let you get away with your relativistic nonsense. There is such a thing as truth here. What sane person would say that Hitler was actually a Christian? That he wasn’t either being deceptive or deluded? Historians certainly don’t think he was one. And show me one teaching of Jesus where He agrees with Hitler’s view? You can’t just say anything you want and get away with it. This is an outright lie.

          And just who thinks Hitler was a good Christian that isn’t a white supremacist, anti-Semite nut-job?

        • john zande says:

          Yes, it is your opinion.

          What sane person would say that Hitler was actually a Christian?

          A few who’re on the record?

          Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber
          Cardinal Adolf Bertram
          Cardinal Theodor Innitzer
          Bishop Hans Meiser of the Bavarian Evangelical-Lutheran Church
          Bishop Rackl of Eichstätt
          Kirchenrat Julius Leutheuser
          The Catholic Hierarchy of Austria
          Father Senn

        • Mel Wild says:

          John, you are not even addressing my point. ALL of these people thought Hitler was “good” BEFORE they knew what he was really like (in the 1930’s). All that proves is that he fooled them completely. But what did these same people think after they found out about him, John? That’s the only point that matters here.

        • john zande says:

          Whatever Mel.

          The actual point is, when you wrote that Hitler was some anti-Christian, anti-Theism dictator, you were simply factually wrong.

          Dead wrong.

          Please learn from this mistake and don’t make it again.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Whatever Mel.
          The actual point is, when you wrote that Hitler was some anti-Christian, anti-Theism dictator, you were simply factually wrong.
          Dead wrong.

          Sorry, JohnZ. That dog won’t hunt. This is the truth you stubbornly refuse to see…

          “…the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious and anti-Christian. In light of evidence such as his 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….

          While a small number of writers accept his publicly stated views as genuine expressions of his spirituality, the vast majority believe that Hitler was skeptical of churches generally – although he “freely acknowledged the religious needs of the masses” – but recognized that he could only be elected and preserve his political power if he feigned a commitment to and belief in Christianity, which the overwhelming majority of Germans believed in. Hitler himself told confidants that his reluctance to make public attacks on the Church was not a matter of principle, but a pragmatic political move. In his private diaries, Goebbels wrote in April 1941 that though Hitler was “a fierce opponent” of the Vatican and Christianity, “he forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons.”

          You are dead wrong, John. So why don’t you learn from your fallacious argument and don’t make this mistake again, although I have no confidence that this will stop you.

        • john zande says:

          “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
          “In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

          There, his own words, Jesus inspiring Adolf Hitler… Adolf Hitler acting as he saw Jesus act.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, I’ve had enough of this. I will delete any further Nazi propaganda you wish to keep regurgitating here, John.

        • john zande says:

          Don’t get angry at facts Mel. As the good Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine said:

          Facts are facts. They are enormously discourteous. They do not revere old books, they do not stand in awe before old beliefs. They do not bow before famous ancestors. They are simply the stuff out of which reality made, and the final judge of truth.”

        • Mel Wild says:

          Then why are you ignoring the facts and keep regurgitating Nazi propaganda?

        • john zande says:

          I’m presenting hard copy contemporary quotes.

          You are presenting opinions forged decades after the events.

          I believe my position thoroughly trumps yours.

        • Mel Wild says:

          You are presenting quotes that were PROPAGANDA to gain support for Hitler’s regime. We can PROVE that his actions are absolutely contrary to Jesus’ teachings.

          Okay, for the last time. This has stupid conversation has gone on far enough. Believe the propaganda if you want, but you’re a fool if you do. Good-bye.

        • john zande says:

          OK Mel, you’re boring me to tears here.

          Embrace your pantomime. Cuddle it. Kiss it if you like. Just know that when you repeat this lie, you will know you’re lying.

          Have a great Christians, though. I hope it’s peaceful and fun.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Thanks. Believe whatever idiotic thing you want.

        • john zande says:

          And let’s not forget the Catholic theologian, Joseph Lortz, who wrote quite a treatise praising the Christian nature of the Nazi’s and Hitler.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Again, irrelevant. What did he think of Hitler after the truth came about him? Just keep making your fallacious argumentation, It won’t change anything that matters.

        • john zande says:

          Opinions can be dismissed quite easily by people who hold differing positions.

          Still doesn’t make your opinion anything but your opinion.

        • Mel Wild says:

          That’s utter nonsense. 2 + 2 always equals 4. There IS truth from evidence that is beyond opinion. With regards to Hitler, we have a plethora of evidence proving what he really was.

          Why don’t you give up this mulish argumentation. It won’t work here. The best you can truly say is that Hitler was either purposely deceiving people or he was deceived himself by his own hatred. On that we can have an opinion, one way or the other, but not that he actually was rightly representing the Christian faith.

        • john zande says:

          You have opinions. Nothing more.

          I have provided you HARD evidence from the time, from Hitler and from others.

          You were wrong, move on from this mistake.

        • Mel Wild says:

          And your HARD EVIDENCE was proven to be WRONG about Hitler.

        • john zande says:

          That doesn’t even make sense.

          MOve on from your mistake, Mel.

          Write posts about Jesus and about your church. Leave history and science alone. You’re terrible at them, and it’s clear you have a pride problem because you can’t admit ever being wrong.

        • Mel Wild says:

          That doesn’t even make sense.

          Are you dense? What was proven wrong about Hitler’s statements after the fact? Where was he actually following any of Jesus’ teachings?

          “…the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious and anti-Christian. In light of evidence such as his 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…

        • john zande says:

          Where was he actually following any of Jesus’ teachings?

          Again? Really?

          Hitler, in his own words, was following Jesus’ example in the temple. He was following (he believed) Jesus’s way. He also wanted a stronger church.

      • Nan says:

        Mel, you wrote: I’m not judging people’s hearts but their fruit. Jesus told us we could tell whether someone is true or false by their fruit.

        I find this a rather interesting statement in that there are many people who demonstrate all the love, goodness, sharing, etc. that Jesus talked about … yet they are not Christians. In fact, some are adamantly against the Christian faith. To me, this goes back to the judge not scriptures … which is demonstrated time and again as being one of Jesus’ least followed instructions.

        BTW, on a side note … it would really be great if you would add a “like” button for comments. The option can be found under Settings. Sharing — at the bottom of the page. 🙂

        • Mel Wild says:

          Nan, I agree that one does not have to be a Christian in order to be loving or be a generally good person. In fact, there are atheists I personally know that behave better than a lot of Christians I know. Some have stronger marriages, more relationally mature (which is one of my pet peeves with Christians). But I see following Christ as going much deeper than imitating the outward actions, or appearing to be “good.” Christianity, to me, is not about the best argument but the transformed human heart that comes from intimate relationship with God. I believe the most important aspect is Jesus’ ability to transform us from the inside-out as we interact with His empowering grace at the deepest heart level, allowing Him to deal with the hidden and dark and murky “us.” So, much that is thought to be good is really only at a superficial level. But by this transformation I’m talking about, we begin to love like He does and show other-centered grace like He does, which I personally don’t think humans do very well, although we think we do because we have the tendency to ignore the parts about us that don’t agree with our estimation of ourselves. We tend to judge other’s weaknesses by our strengths, etc. I see this all the time with supposedly “good” people. And I would also argue that a lot of the best things we’ve inherited in our culture come from Christianity’s influence on Western civilization. It certainly didn’t come from Roman or Grecian culture.

          On the “like” button for comments, I almost didn’t enable the “like” butten for posts! I’m not interested in writing to get personal affirmation or winning approval, although I do see the positive aspect of encouragement for something someone says. I will think about it. Again, I don’t want it to become an approval contest. 🙂

        • Hey Nan!

          The problem with assessing “fruit” is that there still remains exceptional actors and actresses that would easily be hired as double-agents in any covert operations! LOL

          But… what about a lifetime of “fruit”? Full complete track-records? 😉

  7. When discussing the atrocities of World War 2, its precipitating causes and its consequences, one brief form of simplifying the event(s) I like to echo is Niemöller’s condensing of human behavior, or severe lack of:

    First they came for the Communists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Communist
    Then they came for the Socialists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Socialist
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a trade unionist
    Then they came for the Jews
    And I did not speak out
    Because I was not a Jew
    Then they came for me
    And there was no one left
    To speak out for me.

    — Martin Niemöller

    How many different time-periods and how many different geopolitical hot-spots followed by brutal violence around the world through those periods can Niemöller’s prose speak to? A long, long list with few exceptions. But IMO that is where oversimplification should stop. As much as our history, known and little known, and now our life, our existence today can be condensed into neat, simple broad strokes, it is equally a paradox manipulated by non-human forceS (emphasis on the plural) or organic and inorganic entities… like systems on the microbiological, neurological, atomic, and subatomic (Quantum) levels not necessarily human-controlled, if at all.

    The only common denominator is diabolically evil people. Period.

    I beg to differ here. I think that statement is a semi-audacious(?) oversimplification. But to be fair I’ll concede one broad stroke assessment: Another common denominator is simple, pure human fear as Niemöller poignantly alludes.

    Otherwise, I had hoped Mel you’d also get into and explore this history from a psychological and neurological (chemical dependencies) standpoint. When one studies closely this cyclical human behavior/history, several other patterns emerge. There are many historical figures that clearly exhibit psychological and/or neurological disorders manifested from both hereditary and environmental factors. For starters…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathography_of_Adolf_Hitler

    Also, I must take some contention Mel with your implied (derogatory?) use of your own boys. You stated:

    That fantasy notion sort of reminds me of when my wife didn’t want to encourage violence with our boys when they were young, so we didn’t buy them any toy guns. What did they do? They made guns out of sticks they found in the yard.

    Would this mean you subscribe to the doctrine of prenatal/post-natal Total Depravity? As something to consider, I’ve taught young children and their parents methods of conflict resolution and deescalation. These methods utilize only cognitive and effective impactful communication skill-sets, no weapons or potential weapons necessary, which on the contrary suggests humans are NOT born with “evil” tendencies or preexistent conditions. Hitler had a most unstable, violent POST-natal early childhood and adolescence influenced by his family and environment. Many children born into non-violent, empathizing humanistic families and environments, — i.e. not defensive, paranoid or fearful — unless there is a microbiological and/or neurological disorder/defenciency, do NOT look for evil or immoral solutions. They tend to have a increased calming, positive approach to humanity and human interaction. I feel strongly this psychological-neurological pathology is too often denied or overlooked when discussing extreme human behavior AND the passive, fearful(disempowered? uninformed?) of those surrounding such behavior, again as Niemöller poignantly distinguishes.

    To give the benefit of doubt and to be fair, perhaps you didn’t have time or the knowledge(?) of the psychological-neurological factors of Hitler and those around him in appeasement or opposition to include it in this post. This is understandable, but I felt obligated to bring it up sir. 🙂

    • Mel Wild says:

      Professor Taboo, I don’t disagree with a lot of what you’re saying. I have not looked into the psychological or neurological factors with Hitler that much. I’m sure that plays a large part, too. Fear is a big factor. I am making a very general statement when I say humans are at the bottom of it all and trying to refute the idea that its religion that’s solely to blame. It goes much deeper than that as I think you’re alluding to here.

      Would this mean you subscribe to the doctrine of prenatal/post-natal Total Depravity?

      First, that was not my point about my story with the boys. My point was, if someone really wants to do something, suppressing their desire won’t make it go away or stop them. They will just find another way to do it.

      Second, while I think a Pollyanna view of humankind just deciding to live in world peace is a fantasy notion, I don’t subscribe to total depravity as the hardcore Calvinists do either, nor do I subscribe to “Original Sin” as Augustine innovated. I believe the former is a self-refuting argument and the latter is based on a bad translation of Romans 5:12 (I won’t go into that here). But I DO believe that “Adam’s sin,” whether you look at that conceptually or literally, threw us into a cultural and psychological construct of fear and insecurity that creates the environment for sinful behavior between human beings. So, I agree with both Paul’s statement and the Hebrew viewpoint, that while people will sin, it’s not because they are born sinners but because they live in an environment that will eventually lead them to sin (I defined what I mean by “sin” in “Why Jesus? Part Two.”)

      Having said that, I believe there can be meaningful dialogue about this between people of faith and secular on mitigating against this deeply embedded paradigm of fear and insecurity that can breed these inhumanities to humankind that we saw in the 20th Century and continue to see today. For instance, I would think that being forgiving, compassionate, gracious, loving your enemies, not seeking revenge, not being greedy, angry, judgmental, and treating others as you would want to be treated would be seen as a positive thing for humankind. 🙂

      • First, that was not my point about my story with the boys. My point was, if someone really wants to do something, suppressing their desire won’t make it go away or stop them. They will just find another way to do it.

        Would that not just be another (subtle?) way of describing Total Depravity? And I would disagree. Suppressing enough one’s vices or negative behavior eventually DOES change the neural makeup of one’s brain, just like constant reinforcement of positive behavior or virtues. This is a clinical neurological-cognitive fact with normal average brains — also amply demonstrated by a long history of athletic sports training. However, once a point-of-no-return is chemically passed, change or modification is near impossible outside of severe trauma and medical intervention.

        No surprise, I don’t agree with any of your Pauline theology. In fact, if none of the other non-canonical testaments could not be included in the New Testament, then neither should any of Paul’s. After all, Paul NEVER experienced Yeshua/Jesus firsthand — only via psychological delusions like modern schizophrenics do. So probably best to leave it at that and avoid an entire lengthy tangent I’d otherwise be MORE THAN happy to dive into… but not today or this weekend. 😉

        For instance, I would think that being forgiving, compassionate, gracious, loving your enemies, not seeking revenge, not being greedy, angry, judgmental, and treating others as you would want to be treated would be seen as a positive thing for humankind.

        Yes! And furthermore, there is no Proxy or Substitute required for that repeateable human behavior and passed on to generation after generation! It MUST START somewhere and everywhere Mel and all the divisive elitist pretenses dropped, trashed in order to get there! Simple proactive human kindness. It CAN be done. But IMPO living out rigidly and arrogantly John 14:6 is NOT the way to achieve it. Period. All of us must be heavily in, within this world and quit conceding it to a mythological Satan or evil. Be stoically impowered, not hiding behind green Oz curtains! 🙂

  8. john zande says:

    Mel, earlier you asked:

    Tell me what did Hitler do that was actually “Christian?” What teaching of Christ was Hitler following when he gassed the Jews?

    I answered that, and am wondering why you’re ignoring it?

    Hitler directly cites Jesus’ actions in the temple as his own inspiration.

    “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

    “In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

    There, his own words, Jesus inspiring Adolf Hitler… Adolf Hitler acting as he saw Jesus act.

    Does this make Hitler a “good Christian”? Many thought so, but that is simply a matter of opinion. Were the first Crusaders slaughtering other Christians “good Christians”? Many thought so, but that is simply a matter of opinion.

    • Mel Wild says:

      No, JohnZ, this does NOT answer my question at all! Nothing here is what Jesus said. What verse or teaching is Hitler quoting here? There is NO PLACE in Jesus’ teachings where He said that Jews were evil. Jesus told us to even love our enemies and bless those who spitefully abuse us. Jesus’ only attack was on the hypocritical religious leaders, not against the Jews in general. Furthermore, Paul’s love for the Jews was so great that he said he would willingly give his own soul for the Jews to see the light of Christ. There is NO PLACE in the New Testament to justify anti-Semitism.

      The only thing we can rightfully conclude from Hitler’s absolute perversion of Christ’s teachings and life is that his view was anti-Christ. Your argument is still fallacious and your dismissive statement that it’s simply a matter of opinion is incoherent nonsense.

      • john zande says:

        Jesus’ actions, Mel… His actions. Hitler cites Jesus’ actions as his inspiration. He was acting, as you would say, in a “Christ-like manner.”

        Well, he believed so… and he has a point, I guess.

  9. Pingback: WHY DID JESUS DO IT? – Citizen Tom

  10. Pingback: DEBATING WITH “SNOWFLAKES” — PART 1 – Citizen Tom

  11. Pingback: Hitler and what it means to be a (real) Christian | In My Father's House

Comments are closed.