i am presbyterian i want to convert ..

[josie_L]

Of course Hitler was Catholic not Lutheran.

Let’s see if I’m following correctly.

1. a church uses fear tactics to scare peasants out of their scarce money in order to repay loans it used to enhance the lavish living standards of its leaders; loans taken from relatives of the church hierarchy (where the conflict of interest & corruption couldn’t be more obvious).
2. then a man rises up and inspires his people to rebel against this church. Indeed that man initially didn’t want to rebel – but hoped to rectify the situation (not knowing the corruption went right up to the very top).
3. the church vilifies this man, who was only fighting and advocating on behalf of his people, a people who again the church was clearly exploiting.
4. the church continues to vilify this medieval man in the modern era – even accusing him of providing a source of inspiration for fascism (and the holocaust).
5. ironically the man responsible for fascism and the holocaust belonged to the church in question.

These are the objective facts.

If this behavior were present in an individual we would call him or her a sociopath. I’m left wondering – how do we define institutional sociopathy? Hmmm … I think I just did

In Three Popes and the Jews Lapide estimated the total number of Jews that had been spared as a result of Pius XII’s throwing the Church’s **(that would be the institutional “sociopathic” Catholic Church) **weight into the clandestine struggle to save them. After totaling the numbers of Jews saved in different areas and deducting the numbers saved by other causes, such as the praiseworthy efforts of some European Protestants, “The final number of Jewish lives in whose rescue the Catholic Church had been the instrument is thus at least 700,000 souls, but in all probability it is much closer to . . . 860,000.”[21] This is a total larger than all other Jewish relief organizations in Europe, combined, were able to save. Lapide calculated that Pius XII and the Church he headed constituted the most successful Jewish aid organization in all of Europe during the war, dwarfing the Red Cross and all other aid societies.

“We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. . . . During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people passed through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims” (Golda Meir, Israeli representative to the U.N. and future prime minister of Israel).

"With special gratitude we remember all he has done for the persecuted Jews during one of the darkest periods in their entire history” (Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress).

“More than anyone else, we have had the opportunity to appreciate the great kindness, filled with compassion and magnanimity, that the Pope displayed during the terrible years of persecution and terror” (Elio Toaff, Chief Rabbi of Rome, following Rabbi Zolli’s conversion).

Finally, let us conclude with a quotation from Lapide’s record that was not given at the death of Pius XII, but was given after the War by the most well-known Jewish figure of this century, Albert Einstein: “Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty.”[23]

 

[Nino]

It was Einstein who when he escaped from the clutches of nazism declared that only the RCC stood firm against the onslaught of this pagan religion…Peter is hated by the protestors as is obvious for they never mention him cept in a bad way…also never name a church after him etc etc.Peter was everyman…but not a swordsman.thats why Jesus stopped him from defending Him at the garden that nite…Jesus had other plans for Peter so He ordered him to not try and fight the professional soldiers for he had little chance of winning!How many of us have imitated Peter in our every day life…denying Him by remaining silent as others defame the church…think about that one…

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No one denies the extraordinary efforts on part of the Vatican on behalf of European Jews (and nor have I on any occassion); although Einsteins observations seem to ignore the real death nail of the Third Riech, the United States (but not an incredibly relevant fact in the context of the point I’m trying to make).

First, notwithstanding Einsteins admiration for the church institution, he remained throughout his life at least agnostic (denying the existence of a god whose providential governence controls the universe, who answers prayers, or who intervenes in human history). However, the point here was not to explore the religious views of Einstein (it’s sufficient enough to note he was a secular physicist who never seriously entertained any form of religiosity).

In addition, my point was never to say the RCC never did a single good thing in its entire 1800 or 1900 years of existence. Rather it was to show that it’s as flawed as every other major organization (and has been throughout its history). So that’s a complete red herring.

I commonly hear comments inferring a nexus between some statements made by Luther and the racial theories of Adolf Hitler, or Catholics (in refuting my own appreciation for some bits of Nietzschean philosophy) noting that Hiter also had some level of appreciation for the philosopher (creating a false nexus between Nietzsch and facism). Of course all of these observations always ignore the fact that Hitler himself was raised a Roman Catholic in a very antisemitic Austria (and that antisemitism finds at least some of its roots in Catholicism). It also of course ignores the fact that Nietzsche himself despised racism (even ending his friendship with Wagner because Wager was a racist).

Moreover, there’s no objective sense here that Luther had valid points of dispute with the church (who were in no uncertain terms exploiting the German people and breaking a trust they held out as sacred). This is what I mean by organizational sociopathy. If we were talking about an individual and that individual continually denied wrongdoing (that any unbiased observer would objectively define as wrongdoing), and that individual had a pattern of shifting blame, demonizing those who tried to right their wrongs, and so on … we would call them a sociopath (obviously there’s degrees of sociopathy – and I’m not going to dig much deeper here, since I’m only making a very broad observation).

It becomes even more peculiar when I hear misguided comments lauding the philosophy of men like Aristotle (leaving aside how bizarre I always found the fact that a pre-Christian Greek pagan philosopher is held in such high esteem by a Christian church). As if Aristotle, who asserted theories like objects of different mass fall at different speeds under gravity (which of course is wrong), was flawless … or his philosophy was somehow timeless. It simply seems to me that many (though obviously not all) Catholics think in a shell & in some cases outright ignore objective truth.

 

[josie_L]

No one denies the extraordinary efforts on part of the Vatican on behalf of European Jews (and nor have I on any occassion); although Einsteins observations seem to ignore the real death nail of the Third Riech, the United States (but not an incredibly relevant fact in the context of the point I’m trying to make).

First, notwithstanding Einsteins admiration for the church institution, he remained throughout his life at least agnostic (denying the existence of a god whose providential governence controls the universe, who answers prayers, or who intervenes in human history). However, the point here was not to explore the religious views of Einstein (it’s sufficient enough to note he was a secular physicist who never seriously entertained any form of religiosity).

In addition, my point was never to say the RCC never did a single good thing in its entire 1800 or 1900 years of existence. Rather it was to show that it’s as flawed as every other major organization (and has been throughout its history). So that’s a complete red herring.

I commonly hear comments inferring a nexus between some statements made by Luther and Hitler, or Catholics (in refuting my own appreciation for some bits of Nietzschean philosophy) noting that Hiter also had some level of appreciation for the philosopher. Of course all of these observations always ignore the fact that Hitler himself was raised a Roman Catholic in a very antisemitic Austria (and that antisemitism finds at least some of its roots in Catholicism).

Moreover, there’s no objective sense here that Luther had valid points of dispute with the church (who were in no uncertain terms exploiting the German people and breaking a trust they held out as sacred). This is what I mean by organizational sociopathy. If we were talking about an individual and that individual continually denied wrongdoing (that any unbiased observer would objectively define as wrongdoing), and that individual had a pattern of shifting blame, demonizing those who tried to right their wrongs, and so on … we would call them a sociopath (obviously there’s degrees of sociopathy – and I’m not going to dig much deeper here, since I’m only making a very broad observation).

It becomes even more peculiar when I hear misguided comments lauding the philosophy of men like Aristotle (leaving aside how bizarre I always found the fact that a pre-Christian Greek pagan philosopher is held in such high esteem by a Christian church). As if Aristotle, who asserted theories like objects of different mass fall at different speeds under gravity (which of course is wrong), was flawless … or his philosophy was somehow timeless. It simply seems to me that many (though obviously not all) Catholics think in a shell & in some cases outright ignore objective truth.

Francis, we are talking about what influenced Hitler (that he was raised Catholic means nothing, he was an apostate) to become what he was?

P.S. I never stated that Luther influenced Hitler (nor for that matter has the CC), so I can’t understand why you wrote what you wrote concerning the CC. It was not warranted.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Francis, we are talking about what influenced Hitler (that he was raised Catholic means nothing, he was an apostate) to become what he was?

P.S. I never stated that Luther influenced Hitler (nor for that matter has the CC), so I can’t understand why you wrote what you wrote concerning the CC. It was not warranted.

I’m not sure why you would say its “unfortunate” that the CC didn’t influence Hitler (I suspect a typo)?

Of course Josie I’m not just reponding to you … but to the tenor of posts by several posters (either addressed to me in this thread or what I’ve seen here on CAF more generally). So my commentary on the mirade of posts I’ve read creating a false nexus between some statements made by Luther and facism were very well warranted.

For any who would fault Luther for some of the unfortunate statements he made (and I’m certainly not acting as his apologist … since he did indeed say some stupid things), you might want to study up on Catholic saints like John Chrysostom (who was perhaps only rivaled by Hiter in his vitriol against the Jews).

 

[josie_L]

I’m not sure why you would say its “unfortunate” that the CC didn’t influence Hitler (I suspect a typo)?

Of course Josie I’m not just reponding to you … but to the tenor of posts by several posters (either addressed to me in this thread or what I’ve seen here on CAF more generally). So my commentary on the mirade of posts I’ve read creating a false nexus between some statements made by Luther and facism were very well warranted.

For any who would fault Luther for some of the unfortunate statements he made (and I’m certainly not acting as his apologist … since he did indeed say some stupid things), you might want to study up on Catholic saints like John Chrysostom (who was perhaps only rivaled by Hiter in his vitriol against the Jews).

But I never stated anything about Luther that was harsh, while you on the other hand, without making me understand the context in which you were writing the post, blasted the CC (for things I might add the CC never stated of Luther)! Why didn’t you just say that some posters were creating a false (although this is debatable to an extent) nexus between Luther and Hitler? I was led to believe that I was to blame for your tirade (and it was a tirade; you were mad as h*ll)?

P.S. So because you were angry at some Catholic posters about what they were saying of Luther in relation to Fascism, you decided to insult all Catholics (we are the body of the CC afterall) with your post? How does this make sense? And don’t compare St. Chrysostom with Hitler, that is preposterous!!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Before you take a bite out of me for posting something from a Catholic website, please read with an open mind:

Q: What are Catholics bound in faith to believe about human origins? Was Adam really our first parent, or could there have been an entire race of original human beings endowed with immortal souls — an accurate rendering of the Hebrew word “adam”?

Father Oakes: In my opinion, the debate about “monogenism” — the doctrine that says that all humans share the same primal parents — and “polygenism” — that the races come from independent lines of evolution — has been misconceived, for both are true depending on where you stop along mankind’s family tree.

OK I’ll try to address this issue the best I can (as someone without a substantial background in biology). It is true that even under Darwin’s theory of evolution universal common descent stands at its core. However, this theory (now generally accepted within the scientific community) posits that all life originated from one common organism (probably a single cell organism), which is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago.

However, when we begin to talk about the development of humans, and natural selection, it becomes more complex (and even a cursory grasp of this topic will show the idea there was one man and one woman who we all descend from – is not an idea any serious and credible scientist entertains).

Once we reach the stage of primates (and even leading up to that point) there’s both micro and macro evolution. It’s here where we see much of the debate (however, interestingly the overall theory behind macroevolution, common descent, is seen as a “fact of evolution” and its supported by all the empirical data). In other words religious opponents of mainstream evolutionary science dispute points that are accepted as fact (and to spite misperceptions the points of debate are not over reasonable competing theories – but rather theologians have been decisively proven wrong in the most critical areas of evolutionary science; but they just won’t admit it).

So yes the first two chapters of Genesis (upon which the entire rest of the bible is premised) has been proven wrong.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

But I never stated anything about Luther that was harsh, while you on the other hand, without making me understand the context in which you were writing the post, blasted the CC (for things I might add the CC never stated of Luther)! Why didn’t you just say that some posters were creating a false (although this is debatable to an extent) nexus between Luther and Hitler? I was led to believe that I was to blame for your tirade (and it was a tirade; you were mad as h*ll)?

P.S. So because you were angry at some Catholic posters about what they were saying of Luther in relation to Fascism, you decided to insult all Catholics (we are the body of the CC afterall) with your post? How does this make sense? And don’t compare St. Chrysostom with Hitler, that is preposterous!!

I qualified all of my comments quite well (and said things like “I commonly hear” Catholics on CAF say things like …); in other words none of my statements were directed at CC clergy or the institution itself (but rather I commented on common perceptions among many, though not all, Catholics). As far as comparing Hitler to Chrysostom, I didn’t make an overall comparison. Rather I commented on Chrysostoms antisemitic vitriol (which is viewed by scholars as the most harsh in history, save the vitriol from facists or admitted racists).

However, I do also critique the CC itself – since these misperceptions couldn’t exist if they weren’t complacent about difusing them (or did an honest assessment of it’s own folly throughout history and conceded points any reasonable unbaised observer can discern from the facts).

 

[josie_L]

OK I’ll try to address this issue the best I can (as someone without a substantial background in biology). It is true that even under Darwin’s theory of evolution universal common descent stands at its core. However, this theory (now generally accepted within the scientific community) posits that all life originated from one common organism (probably a single cell organism), which is believed to have appeared about 3.9 billion years ago.

However, when we begin to talk about the development of humans, and natural selection, it becomes more complex (and even a cursory grasp of this topic will show the idea there was one man and one woman who we all descend from – is not an idea any serious and credible scientist entertains).

Once we reach the stage of primates (and even leading up to that point) there’s both micro and macro evolution. It’s here where we see much of the debate (however, interestingly the overall theory behind macroevolution, common descent, is seen as a “fact of evolution” and its supported by all the empirical data). In other words religious opponents of mainstream evolutionary science dispute points that are accepted as fact (and to spite misperceptions the points of debate are not over reasonable competing theories – but rather theologians have been decisively proven wrong in the most critical areas of evolutionary science; but they just won’t admit it).

So yes the first two chapters of Genesis (upon which the entire rest of the bible is premised) has been proven wrong.

No, it has not for the Church has not defined the first two chapters of Genesis except for relaying several non-negotiables about the formation of the Universe and as such the World. So until we know how life began on Earth you cannot discount God from the picture.

 

[josie_L]

Of course Hitler was Catholic not Lutheran.

Let’s see if I’m following correctly.

1. a church uses fear tactics to scare peasants out of their scarce money in order to repay loans it used to enhance the lavish living standards of its leaders; loans taken from relatives of the church hierarchy (where the conflict of interest & corruption couldn’t be more obvious).
2. then a man rises up and inspires his people to rebel against this church. Indeed that man initially didn’t want to rebel – but hoped to rectify the situation (not knowing the corruption went right up to the very top).
3. the church vilifies this man, who was only fighting and advocating on behalf of his people, a people who again the church was clearly exploiting.
4. the church continues to vilify this medieval man in the modern era – even accusing him of providing a source of inspiration for fascism (and the holocaust).
5. ironically the man responsible for fascism and the holocaust belonged to the church in question.

These are the objective facts.

If this behavior were present in an individual we would call him or her a sociopath. I’m left wondering – how do we define institutional sociopathy? Hmmm … I think I just did

Here’s what you just wrote:

“I qualified all of my comments quite well (and said things like “I commonly hear” Catholics on CAF say things like …); in other words none of my statements were directed at CC clergy or the institution itself (but rather I commented on common perceptions among many, though not all, Catholics).”

Francis, I’m not purposely trying to be a pain in the a*s, but you clearly state the Church in the quote I posted.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No, it has not for the Church has not defined the first two chapters of Genesis except for relaying several non-negotiables about the formation of the Universe and as such the World. So until we know how life began on Earth you cannot discount God from the picture.

I’m not sure what you’re point is here? If you’re saying the CC maintains that God exists (and we cannot separate creation from god) then OK (I certainly didn’t think otherwise ). My point regarding evolution (frankly I can’t even remember how the thread jumped on this topic, but I was responding to your and another posters comments from the prior page) is aimed at religious views of creation more generally speaking (and not solely the Catholic view). If we look at this logically, and realize that an Adam and Eve is not possible within the evolutionary framework – then the entire rest of the bible (which is all premised on a first couple & the fall of man caused by their discretion in the garden) falls apart.

If you’re now saying at its core the CC only holds to a somewhat Masonic outlook (that there’s a grand architect of the universe – albeit the bible may not accurately depict this creator god) I would say no the CC doesn’t hold such a view (but rather it holds a Christ-centric view where an Adam is necessary i.e. Christ is the last Adam who reverses the sin of the first by his sacrifice on the cross).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Here’s what you just wrote:

“I qualified all of my comments quite well (and said things like “I commonly hear” Catholics on CAF say things like …); in other words none of my statements were directed at CC clergy or the institution itself (but rather I commented on common perceptions among many, though not all, Catholics).”

Francis, I’m not purposely trying to be a pain in the a*s, but you clearly state the Church in the quote I posted.

well, now you’re playing semantics. Your comments that I responded to were targeted at my recent post (made an hour or so ago). Now you’re dredging up a post I made several days ago – that yes was aimed at the church itself (and I still fully stand behind).

I did not lump those critiques together, I made proper distinctions between the church & laypeople (if you take a fair look at the totality of my posts). I think it’s pretty unfortunate that rather than choosing to discuss the substantive issues here; you’re trying to find a crack in my armor and ammunition for an ad hominem? Classic logical fallacy.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No, it has not for the Church has not defined the first two chapters of Genesis except for relaying several non-negotiables about the formation of the Universe and as such the World. So until we know how life began on Earth you cannot discount God from the picture.

First, my commentary on evolution (which is really just relaying facts commonly accepted within the scientific community) is a broad critique of Christianity (not solely Catholicism); and indeed all Abrahamic religions. There are many elements of evolutionary science that are accepted as FACT (not just theory). Indeed there is enough to show that an Adam & Eve could not have occured in anything resembling its biblical depiction.

Therefore, I’m able to use this fact in my own analysis of the veracity of Christianity. Looking at the pivotal role of Adam in New Testament theology – and knowing there was no historical Adam – seems to be a pretty fatal blow to the bible.

I also want to say, in terms of my own personal beliefs, I don’t find the idea of a grand architect offensive (or even impossible). Whether we want to view our accountability to others (and our larger communities) in religious terms, or couched as carma of some sort, or whatever … I do believe in the concept (and find it healthy for orderly progress).

 

[josie_L]

well, now you’re playing semantics. Your comments that I responded to were targeted at my recent post (made an hour or so ago). Now you’re dredging up a post I made several days ago – that yes was aimed at the church itself (and I still fully stand behind).

I did not lump those critiques together, I made proper distinctions between the church & laypeople (if you take a fair look at the totality of my posts).

No, Francis when I made that comment about you blasting the CC I was refering to the quote above. And I thought since you were talking about Luther and Fascism, my one comment on the matter came to mind (and it was nowhere near being harsh towards Luther). And yet it was this comment that I had supposed provoked you to lambast the CC. You were not acting yourself that evening, I don’t why you got so angry?

If you do indeed stand by it then you are being prejudiced against the Church. The CC has never stated Luther influenced Hitler.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No, Francis when I made that comment about you blasting the CC I was refering to the quote above. And I thought since you were talking about Luther and Fascism, my one comment on the matter came to mind (and it was nowhere near being harsh towards Luther). And yet it was this comment that I had supposed provoked you to lambast the CC. You were not acting yourself that evening, I don’t why you got so angry?

If you do indeed stand by it then you are being prejudiced against the Church. The CC has never stated Luther influenced Hitler.

Your actions don’t support your response here. You made your comment directly after my initial post today. Now in a post hoc defense of your comments you’re trying to say they were aimed at a post I made on Thursday or Friday?

Anyway I gotta get going (but perhaps we can drop the sematics & get back to the important issues we were discussing)?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

If you do indeed stand by it then you are being prejudiced against the Church. The CC has never stated Luther influenced Hitler.

The CC isn’t in the habit of issuing slanderous official declarations, but rather they employ an elaborate public relations machine that does this quite well. Here’s some examples. There has been critique of Luther’s antisemitic comments from plenty of non-Catholic sources (even the Archbiship of Canteburty made a comment along these lines, as did notable authors like Peter Weiner).

This bolsters a commonly held view among Catholics (at least in my personal experience); and it’s fueled by mediums like internet forums (for instance see this site: catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/hitler.htm).

Now obviously the church has been effective in most cases in distancing itself from this sort of inflammatory rhetoric. However, it’s passive facilitation and failure to comment publically clarifying its own stance is defacto enablement of this cottage industry of slandering Luther (and attaching to him all sorts of horrible ideas that when using the same logic I could attribute to numerous Catholic saints). So the question is at what point is it “the church” doing something?

When the pope pardons an active holocaust denier does that give me license to accuse the pope of antisemitism? If I reach back and look to comments made by men like St. Chrysostom (that were horrible by any standard) does that attach to the church itself (since by cananozing the man a saint one could logically charge they ratified his comments).

Yet when visiting most Catholic forums you will likely find lay Catholics drawing a nexus between Hitler and Luther. Indeed on some forums articles posted by its resident scholars, masked as commentary on the observations of others (usually digging up comments made by non-Catholics so it has the auro of unbiased commentary), gives sustained life to this perception.

In any analysis of Hitler it can hardly go without notice that he remained a professing Catholic throughout life (to spite his on again off again tirades against the religious establishment in Germany and his ally Italy). Hence to try and shift all the blame to Luther seems to be shifting its part of the blame (if there’s any real blame to be had by any religious denomination – which IMO is a fallacious assumption to begin with).

 

[josie_L]

The CC isn’t in the habit of issuing slanderous official declarations, but rather they employ an elaborate public relations machine that does this quite well. Here’s some examples. There has been critique of Luther’s antisemitic comments from plenty of non-Catholic sources (even the Archbiship of Canteburty made a comment along these lines, as did notable authors like Peter Weiner).

This bolsters a commonly held view among Catholics (at least in my personal experience); and it’s fueled by mediums like internet forums (for instance see this site: catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/hitler.htm).

Now obviously the church has been effective in most cases in distancing itself from this sort of inflammatory rhetoric. However, it’s passive facilitation and failure to comment publically clarifying its own stance is defacto enablement of this cottage industry of slandering Luther (and attaching to him all sorts of horrible ideas that when using the same logic I could attribute to numerous Catholic saints). So the question is at what point is it “the church” doing something?

When the pope pardons an active holocaust denier does that give me license to accuse the pope of antisemitism? If I reach back and look to comments made by men like St. Chrysostom (that were horrible by any standard) does that attach to the church itself (since by cananozing the man a saint one could logically charge they ratified his comments).

Yet when visiting most Catholic forums you will likely find lay Catholics drawing a nexus between Hitler and Luther. Indeed on some forums articles posted by its resident scholars, masked as commentary on the observations of others (usually digging up comments made by non-Catholics so it has the auro of unbiased commentary), gives sustained life to this perception.

In any analysis of Hitler it can hardly go without notice that he remained a professing Catholic throughout life (to spite his on again off again tirades against the religious establishment in Germany and his ally Italy). Hence to try and shift all the blame to Luther seems to be shifting its part of the blame (if there’s any real blame to be had by any religious denomination – which IMO is a fallacious assumption to begin with).

Look, having taken history courses specifically pertaining to that time period, we did hear about and mention Luther (but more to detail the history of anti-semitism in Germany). He did, however inadvertently, have some effect on the consciousness of the German people, but I would not state he was influential in bringing about fascism. This I do not believe. I think other more decisive factors came into play that affected the advent of fascism in Germany.

What do you mean by professing Catholic, except that he stated he was (he was a madman you do realize this)? You know, Francis, I can profess I’m a boy all the live long days of my life, won’t change the fact that I’m a girl. So if it doesn’t walk or talk like a duck, it isn’t a duck. He was an apostate. And furthermore, he wanted to kidnap and kill the Pope (and to borrow a phrase of yours), for goodness sake.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Look, having taken history courses specifically pertaining to that time period, we did hear about and mention Luther (but more to detail the history of anti-semitism in Germany). He did, however inadvertently, have some effect on the consciousness of the German people, but I would not state he was influential in bringing about fascism. This I do not believe. I think other more decisive factors came into play that affected the advent of fascism in Germany.

What do you mean by professing Catholic, except that he stated he was (he was a madman you do realize this)? You know, Francis, I can profess I’m a boy all the live long days of my life, won’t change the fact that I’m a girl. So if it doesn’t walk or talk like a duck, it isn’t a duck. He was an apostate. And furthermore, he wanted to kidnap and kill the Pope (and to borrow a phrase of yours), for goodness sake.

I don’t think there’s anything here I seriously disagree with. Indeed Hiter was obviously not a religious man or a man of conscience (of any sort). The key point I wished to make earlier is that Hiter was a professing Catholic (and according to the church since he was validly baptized and confirmed in the RCC, as I was btw, he remained Catholic notwithstanding his heresy).

The ultimate point is to show the futility of the blame game. Luther could be held no more responsible for Hitler’s mania than his second grade teacher or his childhood priest could. Hitler was the reason for Hiter, and the German people (Catholic and Protestant alike) voted the man into office (at least initially). To be fair Hitler didn’t exactly make a campaign pledge of racial extermination when he first ran for chancellor. The Germans were slowly and methodically mesmorized by his charisma. As Nietzsche said (I’m paraphrasing) people care more about gestures than substance.

This segways into the common critique of Nietzsche (that Hitler was a fan of his, notwithstanding Nietzsche’s disdain for racism proven by his work & actions throughout his life). No serious scholar would ever level such a charge against Nietzsche … so I’m not sure why I hear it so often on CAF? We can say many ruthless politicians used techniques first promulgated by Machiavelli. Does that mean Machiavelli was wrong or evil for simply explaining human nature for what it is? Of course not … and nor was Nietzsche. Indeed in a sureal sort of way Hitler’s use of certain elements of Nietzschean philosophy validates it. If even a madman could succeed using it … imagine how a relatively normal man could benefit from it?

 

[josie_L]

I don’t think there’s anything here I seriously disagree with. Indeed Hiter was obviously not a religious man or a man of conscience (of any sort). The key point I wished to make earlier is that Hiter was a professing Catholic (and according to the church since he was validly baptized and confirmed in the RCC, as I was btw, he remained Catholic notwithstanding his heresy).

The ultimate point is to show the futility of the blame game. Luther could be held no more responsible for Hitler’s mania than his second grade teacher or his childhood priest could. Hitler was the reason for Hiter, and the German people (Catholic and Protestant alike) voted the man into office (at least initially). To be fair Hitler didn’t exactly make a campaign pledge of racial extermination when he first ran for chancellor. The Germans were slowly and methodically mesmorized by his charisma. As Nietzsche said (I’m paraphrasing) people care more about gestures than substance.

This segways into the common critique of Nietzsche (that Hitler was a fan of his, notwithstanding Nietzsche’s disdain for racism proven by his work & actions throughout his life). No serious scholar would ever level such a charge against Nietzsche … so I’m not sure why I hear it so often on CAF? We can say many ruthless politicians used techniques first promulgated by Machiavelli. Does that mean Machiavelli was wrong or evil for simply explaining human nature for what it is? Of course not … and nor was Nietzsche. Indeed in a sureal sort of way Hitler’s use of certain elements of Nietzschean philosophy validates it. If even a madman could succeed using it … imagine how a relatively normal man could benefit from it?

I believe (from what I recollect) that Nietzsche’s philosophy laid some of the ground work for Fascism (like the idea of a superman, please correct me if I’m wrong, it’s been awhile since I studied this), having said this however, can Nietzsche himself be blamed for someone like Hitler? No. Historians have to take into consideration every factor when trying to decipher and make sense of an event, as such something as big as Hitler and fascism in Germany would mean there would be a multitude of factors to take into consideration.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I believe (from what I recollect) that Nietzsche’s philosophy laid some of the ground work for Fascism (like the idea of a superman, please correct me if I’m wrong, it’s been awhile since I studied this), having said this however, can Nietzsche himself be blamed for someone like Hitler? No. Historians have to take into consideration every factor when trying to decipher and make sense of an event, as such something as big as Hitler and fascism in Germany would mean there would be a multitude of factors to take into consideration.

Boy you guys just can’t help yourselves can you? So then we get to blame the centuries of Jew hating by the RCC (and rabid Jew haters like St. Chrysostom) for Hitler as well? Ahhh … but let me guess – that good old Catholic double standard?

Heck let’s play the guilt by association game – Hitler was Catholic therefore the RCC is partially responsible for the holocaust. After all it was thoroughly Catholic Austria that spawned the likes of Adolf Hitler. Prior to the holocaust the CC went on a centuries long rampage against Jews. Beginning with Justin Martyr (who began the concept of Supercessionism and Translated responsibility), in 306 the Synod of Elvira banned marriages, intercourse, and community contacts between Christians and Jews, in 315 Constantine’s edict terminated most rights previously held by Jews, a Jew who married a Christian was put to death, conversion to Judaism was a criminal offense, St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who god cursed forever, Emperor Theodosius permitted the destruction of synagogues, in 380 the bishop of Milan “initiated” the destruction of a synagogue, in 1205 Pope Innocent III wrote that the Jews are consigned to perpetual servitude, the Synod of Narbonne 1227 required Jews to wear an oval badge (sound familiar), the Spanish Inquisition, Jews forced into ghettos in Venice 1516, in 1555 a Papal bull required Jews in Vatican controlled lands to wear badges and be confined to ghettos (hmmm maybe the church really is responsible for spawning Hitler), massacres of Jews in Nemirov, Polonnoye, Tulchin, Volhynia, Bar, Lvov, and other cities in Ukraine (about 100,000 killed), Pope Pius IX restored all restrictions against Jews in the Vatican state in 1846-78 (not until the Nazi’s in the 1930’s were any other “new” Jewish ghetto’s created), etc. etc etc.

Oh but bad bad Nietzsche … who only wrote a few books