Debate:Was Hitler a Christian?

From RationalWiki

This is a Debate Page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story
But keep it civil or we will like totally do... something involving something that could be considered in some way hurtful. This Debate was created by 3.14159

Does Hitler's own claims to be a Christian make him Christian or does his UnChrstian action make him not a Christin?

[edit] June 10, 2008

Kind of a ridiculous claim. Even if he called himself a christian. If I called myself a Liberal, but still held to all the positions I hold, It would not make sense to call me a liberal. The same thing goes for Hitler. Everything that he did was totally against christianity, and christian teaching. It is therefore wrong to call him a christian. The only possible reason for someone to insert that claim into an article is to attempt to smear christianity by association. The user got blocked, and deserved it. --CPAdmin1 14:35, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Maybe "self-proclaimed Christian" would be more fitting, but to say that anyone who did anything wrong is not a Christian is a pretty radical "No True Scotsman" philosophy. I mean, CP doesn't afford the same rights of denial to other groups, religious or otherwise. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:43, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I am in no way claiming that "anyone who did anything wrong is not a christian." Everyone does things wrong. I am saying that in the case of Hitler, who did nothing to give any evidence of being a Christian, and everything he did is directly opposite to Christianity, any self proclaimed association with christianity does not stand up to the evidence. --CPAdmin1 14:46, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Just out of curiosity, would you call the Crusaders Christians? Also, RE Hitler being Christian, see this. Then again, it is that <mocking sarcasm>coward</mocking sarcasm> Austin Cline. Thunderkatz^Ho! 14:51, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the questions this brings up for many of us is: So, where do you draw the line? Who is, and who isn't, a Christian? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Tah-daaaaaaah!} 14:53, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Again, I apologize for my exaggeration. I never intended the "anything wrong" to apply to everyday sins, etc. But, for example, was Jerry Falwell a Christian? He said some pretty hateful things. Is Ted Haggard? Does it require horrible deeds to become not a true Christian, like the crusaders? I guess I meant the above replies - "Where is the line drawn?" but also, is it fair that other groups aren't allowed the same right to deny? I really didn't mean any offense or to start an argument, especially since I really do respect you, but I guess I wasn't very effective. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 15:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I could be wrong as I don't read the Bible all that much, but doesn't it say that anyone who is born again goes to heaven? I thought (and agin correct me if I'm wrong) that we do not and in fact very obviously cannot win a way into heaven based on our action but rather based on a commitment to Christ who paid the price for our sins. Actions don't enter it. Even really bad ones. You don't know if Hitler "gave his heart" to Christ and to claim otherwise is to play God. Christianity may be smeared by association and given the people it associates with it may just deserve it. Original sin and all that (which apparently out-weighs even the sins of Hitler) Come on CP this is very basic stuff. RedDog 15:20, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

You are correct. Anyone who is born again does go to heaven. And again you are right nobody can "win" their way to heaven. It is only based on faith. But the Bible also teaches that if you have faith, there will be evidence of that faith. Obviously no one here can judge the heart of anyone else. There are 2 possible definitions of a Christian.

• The first is someone who has faith in, and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
• The second is someone who is part of a "Christian" church, or lives "as a christian."

One definition is based on outward appearances, and the other is based totally on an individual's spiritual relationship with Christ. The two definitions are totally independent. (someone can meet either definition without meeting the other) On the first definition we can not make a definite judgement. (especially on someone who we have never met). The best we can do is look at what evidence there is of their faith. On the second definition, we can make some kind of judgement.

Hitler does not meet either definition as far as we can judge it. His life gives no evidence of faith in christ. His worldview was actually heavily influenced by Darwin. (Another debate for another time) Another bit of evidence is that many Christians in Germany opposed Hitler (at least those that had the courage to do so) and some were killed for it.

As for the crusaders, I can make no judgement on their hearts either. The crusades are not something that can be justified biblically. I believe that many of the crusaders were deceived by the Catholic Church, (see definition 2) and many were going just for personal glory. ^{— Unsigned, by: CPAdmin1 / talk / contribs}

If one is to say that the group is allowed to say "that person is not one of us," and the group of Christians say "Hitler was not one of us" isn't it also fair for the group of liberals to say "Fred Phelps isn't one of us"? It appears the rule at CP is "one cannot put bad people into groups we like" and "one must put bad people into groups we dislike." --Shagie 15:31, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I do not agree with Andy's (and by extension CP's) definition of liberal. I don't like the double standards at CP, so don't use CP's position against me. --CPAdmin1 15:45, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I (genuinly) respect that and admire you for posting it. You do not have to be 100% with everything to generally support it's aims. I would admite it more though if you posted that just as openly over at CP. RedDog 15:51, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

To be fair, he often posts quite openly on CP (as much as he can without getting booted at least) - he just gets shoved around and ignored a lot, too. :( --Sid 15:54, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I think this exact point wasn't about you, but rather CP sysops like Andy and Kara. You have been known to show a good deal of common sense, and we respect that. The only thing I'd see connected to you is that you apparently mis-read the intended emphasis of the WIGO item. See also my reply (now) below. --Sid 15:54, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, that's the point (and what I tried to focus on in the WIGO entry). It's not about whether Hitler was a Christian, claimed to be a Christian or whatever. It's about some CP sysops getting to define who is or isn't Christian or conservative based on whether they like the person in question. And then they proclaim that no member of their group ever did anything bad as a way of justifying their belief.

On the flip side, anybody who is not liked is automatically a liberal, even if the connection is shaky at best. The Westboro Baptist Church for example is listed as a "liberal organization" on CP's "Liberal" article, and Fred Phelps was long listed as a "liberal activist". --Sid 15:48, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I understand that. (actually, the article made no claim about whether he was a christian.) But in the example of Hitler, if you want to attack them for taking out the claim that he was a christian, then you need to argue that he was. I am saying that Hitler does not seem to fall into any definition of Christian, and the user who put it in was just attempting to smear Christianity. Obviously, Christians do bad things too (see Ted Haggard). And CP's stance on "Liberal" is way off. --CPAdmin1 16:03, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I wouldn't call WIGOing an "attack", but that's semantics, I guess. The WIGO emphasis was on Karajou's "No true Scotsman" argument and not on the "Hitler was a Christian" edit. If I had wanted to put the focus on the latter, I would have said something like "Hitler - not a Christian, according to CP". I don't really care about what triggered the remark and only included it as a context note in the WIGO post. --Sid 16:09, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough. --CPAdmin1 16:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

WIGO is no more an attack than CP's mainpage right is. --Shagie 16:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Did Hitler believe himself to be a Christian? Realize that there are many sects of Christianity and some have different definitions of inclusion than what you may believe. Could he recite the Nicene Creed (for example) and say "yes I believe that." Or the Apostle's Creed? Do not forget that there are sects that are considered Christian today that do not accept either of those. --Shagie 16:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Hitler was a Christian as much as most people in Europe are/were, in that he was not any other religion, and he was not an atheist. He was not exactly devout, and I believe I recall reading in Albert Speer's memoirs that Hitler considered himself a Christian, but was a bit annoyed that Jesus was such a wuss (to paraphrase). The real problem with the edit that was reverted was that it put too much emphasis on his religion when it was not an important aspect of who he was or what he did. "Christian" does not appear in the first sentence of any US President's articles over there (as far as I can tell), so it clearly does not belong so prominently in Hitler's.

As for Hitler and Darwin, well, one can be a Christian and influenced by Darwin, for what it's worth. I'm not so sure was very influenced by Darwin, as I'm pretty sure he doesn't mention him in Mein Kampf. Also, if Hitler is not a Christian because he so misinterpreted Christ's teachings, then he certainly isn't a "Darwinist" either, as he got that even more wrong. DickTurpis 18:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I am pretty sure that Hitler believed only in three things: Himself, the Aryan race, and whatever would be expedient for advancing the Nazi cause. --AKjeldsen^{Potential fundamentalist!} 19:06, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

I think this is a revisionist attempt to polish Christianity's reputation after the tarnishing effects that the Third Reich had upon it. Christianity was used by the Nazis much like they used radio, the high-tech of the day, to weasel their way into power and once there, to monopolize the "public discourse" to achieve their own ends. The efforts of modern Christians trying to place distance between their faith and the actions of the Nazis is nonetheless understandable, except that it is "too soon" and the record too clear of what was attempted, by whom and for what reasons. "Was Hitler Christian?" Only as much as he needed to be. CЯacke® 20:20, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Does it matter though?

I thought I'd chime in just the for the hell of it. I have to question the importance of this. I understand that the original was meant more as a demonstration of CP's "Like/Dislike" Political category, but I question if it matters. Hitler may have considered himself Christian.. He may not have... To me, it doesn't seem to matter. I'm only 22, but I've learned that religion, all religion can be good or bad, which is where my personal dislike comes into play. For example, Ghandi did amazing things for other people, but because he was not Chrisitian, people like Andy jump up and start yelling about hellfire right away. Pope John Paul II did amazing things, but other religious will criticize him. The point I think I'm trying to make is that what religion someone prescribes to means nothing. It's what they do and how they show compassion that we should care about. This endless debate seems like it's "Hitler was Christian, so Christians are bad people" as the point, and the counterpoint "He wasn't Xtian, we're not bad." I think that the only reason to really care and argue forcefully about this is for guilt by association purposes... Anyway, I'll get down off the soapbox now. Feel free to use it. SirChuckB^{HITWIN FOR PRESIDENT!} 21:40, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The basic problem (for religious folks) is that Hitler said he was a Christian, and God apparently didn't feel the need to disagree in public. Which reflects badly on the Big Guy. --Gulik 21:48, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

It matters in two ways. First, the recognition of the historical role Christianity, especially the Roman Catholic Church, played in WW2 and in particular the holocaust. This is very important not as a criticism of Christianity, but as a warning to members of all organised religions that their faith can be used as a political and ideological tool by the unscrupulous and evil.

Secondly, it matters because the Hitler/Christianity thing is used as a point-scorer. While anti-atheists use Stalin and Pol Pot as examples of why atheism is A Bad Thing, it is tempting for atheists to use Hitler as a counter-argument to show that Christianity is also A Bad Thing. Of course, we know that both arguments are over-simplistic, banal, and completely and utterly without merit. Bad people do bad things and will use whatever tools at their disposal. Atheists should not fall into the trap of using Hitler as a defence - rather demolish the argument that Stalin & Co did evil things because they were atheists. Ajkgordon 03:53, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Semantic Bullshit

This argument is over nothing. What defines a Christian is where you have to start if you want to have a rational discussion of such a silly thing. Since a definition will very obviously place Hitler in one of two categories, this argument can only possibly be about definitions, and therefore not be about anything meaningful. What question were you really trying to ask? BlueSprite 13:07, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Semantics isn't always a bad thing to argue. Plus, most of the discussions here are for fun rather than to actually come to a decision... Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 16:56, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Nobody's arguing the semantics, as far as I can tell. Was trying to draw attention to why it might be that this argument was going nowhere. But if it's just for fun and noone's seeking, then fair 'nuff. BlueSprite 21:30, 1 December 2008 (EST)

This argument is going no where as you are the first person to edit it since everyone lost interest in June :) - User = 23:41, 1 December 2008 (EST)

Eh, new here. There was a standing invitation for conservatives to join the debates on the site, so I did. I felt it was ironic that this was to be an outpost of rationality, and yet everyone in this thread managed to miss the point by so much. In short, I came here in the spirit of combativeness, determined to adhere to the rules of rational argumentation. But it appears that there was no point to this argument; that it was merely in jest, so I've wasted my time in this case. Fair enough. If I see other debates that captures my interest, I'll post there and we can have another round. BlueSprite 10:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

The thing is that, as is often the manner of such things, this is just part of a greater running debate that is taking place in four or five other places around the site. See e.g. Positive Christianity, Nazi#Religion in National Socialism, Adolf Hitler#Religious beliefs and their associated talk pages, and Talk:Hitler and Christianity. The debate isn't dead, it just went elsewhere. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 11:15, 2 December 2008 (EST)