September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Are Homosexuals Born that Way? | Main | Links Mentioned on the Show »

February 24, 2012


I've heard that the antisemitism was a pure result of Lutheranism.


Of the general population, probably a large part. Luther sort of went mad at the end of his life and become a fervent anti-semite. As the post indicates, however, Hitler was not Lutheran so while he may have used Luther to fuel the fires, that was not what influenced him.

There is an episode of Unbelieveable where is is argued that Naziism was an outgrowth of Chrisitanity, and had nothing to do with Darwinism.

Throughout Mein Kampf there is one unifying thread that holds the contents of its pages together: "The strong should rule and the weak have shown themselves deserving of extermination." On the face of it, this philosophy is completely hostile to the idea of Christian charity. To say that someone who espouses a philosophy that is at war with Christendom is one of its ardent members is....well....silly.

I am currently reading "Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography" by John Toland. I have just progressed to the end of WWI and so far religious sentiment and language is laced through out Hitler's personal writings. And some of his later writings, Mein Kompf in particular, seems to engage in some revisionist history with regard to his personal feelings during the time of WWI and its immediate aftermath. His compatriots at the time do not recall an elevated level anti-semitism beyond that of the general population. I am interested to see how he progresses through the upcoming years. Do I for a second believe Hitler was a Christian? No. But I am waiting to see how this story unfolds for the details.


From your reading you note that Hitler was not known by his anti-semitism during the time of WWI and its aftermath beyond that of his compatriots. That statement is misleading because while they were gassing Jews this same thing was true of him as many of much of the general population were quite happy to have them march into the death camps and up the crematorium chimneys. Of course there were many exceptions to this, but even during WWI, antisemitism was quite common in the German culture. The bottom line is to be suspicious of authors who use these kinds of carefully crafted and misleading statements that are obviously not going in a straight line to a point. The reason they are not, is because they are trying to avoid the obstacles that one wouldn't expect in the way when telling the truth.

I understand your sentiments but I am not sure I was directly quoting a statement of the author's but rather summarizing a presentation of "facts". Hitler apparently states in Mein Kampf (misspelled before) that it was at the end of the war that he discovered how all the conspiracies to end the war with Germany as the loser and to create unrest in the country were instigated by the Jews. However, these beliefs don't exhibit themselves in his writings and others remembrances of him at the time. Now, we can't really know what he thought at that time but it seems reasonable that his political evolution caused him to reframe the events of the past. It's probably a good idea to be suspicious of most authors to a certain degree:)


This excerpt from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich should enlighten you of the roots of Hitler's antisemitism going a lot further back.

In the spring of 1913 he left Austria to escape military service. This was not because he was a coward but be cause he loathed the idea of serving in the ranks with Jews , Slavs and other minority races of the empire. In Mein Kampf Hitler states that he went to Munich in the spring of 1912, but this is an error. A police register lists him as living in Vienna until May 1913.

His own stated reasons for leaving Austria are quite grandiose.

"My inner revulsion toward the Hapsburg State steadily grew . . . I was repelled by the conglomeration of races which the capital showed me, repelled by this whole micxture of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Serbs, and Croats, and everywhere the eternal muishroom of humanity -- Jews, and more Jews. To me the giant city seemed the embodiment of racial desecration... The longer I lived in this city the more my hatred grew for the foreign mixture of peoples which had begun to corrode this old site of German culture...For all these reasons a longing rose stronger and stronger in me to go at last whither since my childhood secret desires and secret love had drawn me."

Yes EricW, we can know what he was thinking as he left evidence of exactly what he was thinking at that time. His own words make him out to be a Jew hater way earlier than the revisionist literature out there.

William Shirer did a fine job in writing the expose of the Third Reich and did so without bias. My hat is of to the man for a job well done.

I read that one a couple years ago. greatly enjoyed it.

I think everything I said still stands though. Enjoy these discussions, by the way. Should we assume all of Hitler's Mein Kampf accurately reflects his feelings or do they reflect how he sees the past now that he is in the future? Terribly worded there. The only reason I bought the Toland book, originally published in 1976, was because he cited Shirer's work. We'll see how it progresses from here on. On a related note, have you read any John Mosier, Myth of the Great War, etc..? He is certainly a revisionist, and his reviews are very polarized, but I think his lines of argument in many cases are sound. His is one who challenges the notion i grew up with that Hitler was a terrible commander in chief and very poor strategist. If were up to the generals they would have one. So, I don't want to dismiss all revisionism.

I have not read John Mosier and there are a lot of atheists that quote the bible too. That said, Hitler pretty well followed up with actions those things he outlined in Mein Kampf. Anyone who had read him, would not have been surprised by his actions while he was the Furer, if they took the book seriously or if they could work through the boredom of reading his meandering writings. When it comes to reading things written by revisionists, I hold the view that historical accounts that are laced with the poison of lies kill the truth and if you take enough poison of this kind in, pretty soon, you will become dead and unresponsive to the truth when you come across it. It is dangerous and even deadly to your intellectual life to ingest poisonous scholarship. That is why I stay away from it. Far away.

It is possible for someone to use the gospel or carry a Christian logo in order to fulfill their propaganda, evil desires and even twisted and perverted mentality. Just look around in the U.S. and you will find people of supremacist groups who use the Christian logo to validate their group. Look at Jim Jones who used his influence to cause the deaths of many.

Hitler was no different; his evil mental hatred of the Jews and others revealed his evil heart. After all Jesus already said that we should know people by their fruits and Hitler had none. He might have attended Catholic Church and used Christian logos but his fruit contained no evidence of Christianity.


"He might have attended Catholic Church and used Christian logos but his fruit contained no evidence of Christianity. "

But we know he didn't do any of those things. There is a record of his membership in a political party, not the church. So, while your reasoning is actually sound, it is not necessary in Hitler's case. There is no need to surrender the ground that Hitler was not a Christian. He wasn't. In fact he categorically was not and I base that on clear historical evidence as presented by people who were there at the time. Hitler made it clear to his followers that whatever moral infractions they committed in defense of the Reich, that included killing off the Jews and gypsies or the disabled, would be something that he, himself, would take the moral responsibility for...even before God. He set himself as the savior of Germany even before God. As such, he was competing against Jesus himself and claiming for his own that which belongs only to Jesus...being the advocate to the Father for us. That's not Christianity, that's heresy and blasphemy.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. Now way was I advocating that Hitler was a Christian but rather that some people argue that he was Catholic because he attended church at a young age. Some people in the attempt to disgrace Christianity would love to have Hitler known as a Christian and they often try to present that he was a Catholic.

And my point is that Hitler was mentally perverted and used similar symbols and figurative language of Christianity to deceive the people but that did not make him a Christian.


You are right that some people claim these things and worse than that some believe them. That is why it was important to set the record straight based on accurate historical sources.

Arthur writes:
"Now way was I advocating that Hitler was a Christian but rather that some people argue that he was Catholic because he attended church at a young age."

People who argue that way are idiots. I once worked as a bus boy at La Cage a Faux. Does that make me a cross-dressing homosexual?



No it does not depend. The only criteria given by Thomas is what it depends on and that is that of working there apart from any other consideration. You are not free to drag in your own criteria when Thomas clearly states the limits of allowable criteria on which to base your judgment. So, if you find fault with his reasoning, please tell us what that fault is.

Depends on why you are so angry? Is because you get irritated at a typo when I meant to say “No” instead of “Now”? Is it possible that you are misreading my comment?

Or is it because you are an angry Homosexual that would like to see the opposition silenced? We were not even talking about the subject.

Or is it because you are struggling with a sinful lost behavior versus the knowledge of Salvation? By using Thomas Aquinas name reveals you have knowledge of Christian theology. I guess it all depends on what your anger is about?

Do you call people idiots to their face or is it only when you hide behind a computer? It all depends…….

And for Louis; I think knowledge is good and reasoning is great and logic is fantastic but sometimes discernment is supreme.

Louis; I wasn’t really interested in debating over this blog but I had to go read what you wrote on the other topic of Homosexuality in order to see where you are coming from mentally. Because it is apparent you took my comment and twisted it to mean what you invented in your own mind. I personally just think you are playing games.

I noticed your attempt to validate a Homosexual relationship as not being immoral. You even tried to compare that relationship with a choice of robbing a bank. And you asked the question; is doing something immoral automatically make it a moral act? It sounds like you are just arguing backwards. A walking contradiction. How would you define Moral or Immoral and by whom would you define it by?


I tried to warn you, but I think the warning came too late. I am sorry.

I don;t think I will be blogging in the future; to many games being played.

You have a serious mental problem Louis.

The comments to this entry are closed.