Sudan Massacre

[Politesse]

This entire line of argument, if it can be called that, seems to be gesturing at guilt by association, which is precisely why we should not confuse causation with correlation.

I can think of nothing more irrelevant than asking whether Christianity "caused Nazism" or "caused Hitler". No one thing "causes" an entire historical era or a complex social institution, and even if one somehow isolated such a "cause", it would only lead you to the next unsolveable question of causation (Well what caused that then? And what caused that? turtle upon turtle back to to the Big Bang).

 

[laughing dog]

I am genuinely stumped.

Based on my understanding of history, it is my opinion that kn general, Christian nations were more dangerous to world than Islamic countries during the 20th century based on them starting WWI and WWII in Europe, and their willingness to violently intervene in 3rd world countries/colonies. This dangerous potential is exhibited in this century as well.

In my opinion. Islamic countries are more dangerous in general to their citizens than Christian countries.

I do not understand how you think that certain nations (but not others) that were predominantly Christian started 20th century wars because of Christianity. This seems to be your implication, but clearly this was not the case. If it is not the case that you think these wars were started because of Christianity, then I again have no idea what your point is, except to slur Christians. Note that I am an atheist.

“Because of Christianity “ has not been used by me. I stated my opinion. Clearly you don’t get it. I observed what I think is a strong correlation. While correlation is not causation, it may be suggestive.

Yes, and I pointed out that correlation was not causation, with which you now agree. So again, what is your argument here?

The bold-faced parts succinctly state my observations and reasons. I fail to understand your failure to understand. I am not trying to get anyone to agree my view.

Hitler was not leading a Christian theocracy. His ideology was essentially a state religion revolving around supposed Aryan superiority over “inferior races.” Likewise, Stalin had a state religion called Communism that actively suppressed the church. Hitler did too, to some extent

Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany

The barest sketch of an argument here would be that there was always a strain of anti-Semitism in Christianity, which would have coincided with HItler’s anti-Semitism.

Completely irrelevant to my observation.

 

[pood]

Since Hitler and his merry band of murderers were basically all atheists, ....

You know Hitler outlawed all the atheist organizations, don't you? And his associates report him criticizing atheism in private conversations. He appears to have been some sort of deist or pantheist, rejecting existing organized religions but believing in a higher creator. You really can't generalize about the merry band of murderers -- like any gang tied together by secular purposes their religious views varied. Several of them were deists of some sort; Bormann was a known atheist; Goering was into the old pagan Germanic religion; Himmler was an esoteric religious nutcase who wouldn't let atheists join the SS; and the only thing Goebbels appears to have worshipped was Hitler.

All granted. The point is that Hitler was trying to create his own secular religion around Nazism, just as Stalin was doing around Communism. Stalin was already oppressing Christianity and Hitler intended to do the same, though he was temporarily creating a modus vivendi with Catholics and Protestants until he could wipe them out. As noted upthread, however, he was already persecuting Catholics and Protestants both in Germany and Poland after he occupied it, where he was particularly brutal.

 

[pood]

War II.

Then you lack both historical education and reading comprehension.

Please fuck off. I have far more historical education and reading comprehension than you.

Hitler was the head of an explicitly theocratic state,

No he was not. He was the head of a fascist state. Do try to learn the difference.

that both created and endorsed a Christian denomination.

Untrue. He tried to exploit and coerce Christianity in the service of his broader goals, because pragmatically he recognized that most Germans were Protestant and Catholic. But, as noted above with cites, he persecuted both Catholics and Protestants.

If that is not "really" Christian, what would be?

Nothing that you have said.

I really don't care what the aristocracy privately thinks, or says to friends, or writes about in their diaries. A fascist theocratic state functions exactly the same way whether its head of state "really believes" the doctrines it enforces on the populace or not. My general presumption is that no authoritarian leader is particularly religious - piety and egotism don't exactly sleep comfortably together - but that doesn't change the impact of their actions.

Yeah, and I have already said that both Hitler and Stalin were both trying to create fascist/Communists secular theorcratic states, and so what? What does that have to do with Christians?

 

[pood]

It is so fascinating how people online, when confronted with disagreement, fall back on “you are uneducated” or “you lack reading comprehension.” This is the smarmy little dodge of posters who cannot actually defend their BS. Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows neither charge is true of me.

 

[pood]

This entire line of argument, if it can be called that, seems to be gesturing at guilt by association, which is precisely why we should not confuse causation with correlation.

I can think of nothing more irrelevant than asking whether Christianity "caused Nazism" or "caused Hitler". No one thing "causes" an entire historical era or a complex social institution, and even if one somehow isolated such a "cause", it would only lead you to the next unsolveable question of causation (Well what caused that then? And what caused that? turtle upon turtle back to to the Big Bang).

I fully agree. So what is your point? The discussion here is LD trying (and failing) somehow to link the wars of the 20th century to Christianity. Your view? Agree? Disagree? Or what?

 

[laughing dog]

This entire line of argument, if it can be called that, seems to be gesturing at guilt by association, which is precisely why we should not confuse causation with correlation.

I can think of nothing more irrelevant than asking whether Christianity "caused Nazism" or "caused Hitler". No one thing "causes" an entire historical era or a complex social institution, and even if one somehow isolated such a "cause", it would only lead you to the next unsolveable question of causation (Well what caused that then? And what caused that? turtle upon turtle back to to the Big Bang).

I fully agree. So what is your point? The discussion here is LD trying (and failing) somehow to link the wars of the 20th century to Christianity. Your view? Agree? Disagree? Or what?

I linked them - correlation is linking. You agreed.

 

[Politesse]

This entire line of argument, if it can be called that, seems to be gesturing at guilt by association, which is precisely why we should not confuse causation with correlation.

I can think of nothing more irrelevant than asking whether Christianity "caused Nazism" or "caused Hitler". No one thing "causes" an entire historical era or a complex social institution, and even if one somehow isolated such a "cause", it would only lead you to the next unsolveable question of causation (Well what caused that then? And what caused that? turtle upon turtle back to to the Big Bang).

I fully agree. So what is your point? The discussion here is LD trying (and failing) somehow to link the wars of the 20th century to Christianity. Your view? Agree? Disagree? Or what?

Christianity is a very abstract concrpt, meaning a lot of things to billions of people. But is it "linked" to Nazism snd Italian Fascism? Yes, and by the Nazis snd Fascists themselves, who were adamant in trying to use it to support their regime internally and justify it internationally. Many Christians resisted the Nazi movement as well, some unto death, but at least within the Third Reich, not nearly as many people rejected as accepted it, and certainly not nearly enough to do anything about it before the situation ended in grim tragedy and lasting infamy. Ask the average Germans today why they don't believe the church should wield strong governmental power, and they'll tell you the whole grim story in much more detail than I or LD have.

 

[Politesse]

It is so fascinating how people online, when confronted with disagreement, fall back on “you are uneducated” or “you lack reading comprehension.” This is the smarmy little dodge of posters who cannot actually defend their BS. Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows neither charge is true of me.

Then read. If you won't read the posts in this thread, consider a book:

Narrative Theology After Auschwitz: From Alienation to Ethics...

Find the best prices on Narrative Theology After Auschwitz: From Alienation to Ethics by Fasching, Darrell J at Biblio | Paperback | 1992 | Augsburg Fortress Publishing | 9780800625313

www.biblio.com

I apologize for being rude, but Holocaust denialism, even the selective variety, is a pretty sore point with me. And with many other people. You're denying history that is:

1. Common knowledge
2. Very important for everyone in the Christian world to understand.