This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Just read some interesting historical article on Martin Luther - one word shock

#41IvashankoPosted 1/14/2013 4:29:07 PM
I'd like to see the "more to the story" but you scampered out of the last thread when you got caught on your historical inadequacies.

Positive Christianity was outright political manipulation, though. The goal was to strip Christianity of any Jewish tradition- something which is untenable because, with few exceptions (Pontius Pilate, etc) the heroes, villains, and neutral characters in the New Testament are all Jewish. While it was technically supposed to be 'non-denominational', it changes made a break with both Protestantism and Catholicism inevitable. The major Churches in Germany began pushing back when they realized that Positive Christianity would be forced on them (the Pfarrernotbund)- and while initially successful, almost all would be imprisoned or killed in the upcoming years.

As for whether Positive Christianity is a heresy or simply unChristian depends on one factor: can a heresy be created by someone who not only doesn't believe in it, but who also were not Christians? Neither Hitler nor anyone in his close circle of advisers were Christians (they seemed to have a fascination with Occult Religions), which is something very well known to people who have studied the era (Goebbels' diary is a interesting read, particularly for matters such as this. He said Hitler was 'religious but entirely anti-Christian', something backed up in almost all Hitler's private conversations. He would make similar remarks about nearly every other high cabinet member, excepting a few generals iirc.
#42IvashankoPosted 1/14/2013 4:36:38 PM
And more on topic: Luther was very much a human. While it is very likely that his illness did affect all of his latter works (making him more irritable), his turn from a friend to the Jews to not a friend to an enemy is one that history lacks a clear understanding of. The 'traditional' point is when Luther refused to represent the Jews to their noble lord like he would in the past, but that suggests something happened before than that made him stop being their friend. It would take another few decades before he turned outright anti-Semitic, however, and why that occurred we have even less of a marking point or an idea why.
#43DoGCyNPosted 1/14/2013 4:44:39 PM
JonWood007 posted...
Countering LMS's BS about how bad Martin Luther was while more or less implying his church is the one true one. Martin Luther ain't perfect, the catholic church is no better. Let's just accept ideas on their merit.


Understood. Although...I think the first sentence in your post coulda been left out :P.
---
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
#44AynRandySavagePosted 1/14/2013 5:18:45 PM
Ivashanko posted...

As for whether Positive Christianity is a heresy or simply unChristian depends on one factor: can a heresy be created by someone who not only doesn't believe in it, but who also were not Christians? Neither Hitler nor anyone in his close circle of advisers were Christians (they seemed to have a fascination with Occult Religions), which is something very well known to people who have studied the era (Goebbels' diary is a interesting read, particularly for matters such as this. He said Hitler was 'religious but entirely anti-Christian', something backed up in almost all Hitler's private conversations. He would make similar remarks about nearly every other high cabinet member, excepting a few generals iirc.



You're making the exact same mistake TRJ did. Positive Christianity wasn't just a Nazi belief. It evolved for decades in Protestant German Churches. And Hitler himself(in addition to Goebbels) had little to no impact on the formation of the The German Churchs in Nazi Germany.
#45IvashankoPosted 1/14/2013 5:32:13 PM
You're making the exact same mistake TRJ did. Positive Christianity wasn't just a Nazi belief. It evolved for decades in Protestant German Churches. And Hitler himself(in addition to Goebbels) had little to no impact on the formation of the The German Churchs in Nazi Germany.

You are confusing the Positive Christianity of Chamberlain and Burnouf for the Positive Christianity in the Nazi Party (which would still fall into my early question of whether a true heresy could be created by unbelievers- the founders of Higher Criticism Positive Christianity were 'rationalists', the mass majority of whom out-rightly rejected the miracles in the Bible). The Positive Christianity in the German Party adopted these ideas, but changed many of them (I would suggest reading the early writings of the doctrine of Positive Christianity and compare them to the latter- they are both nationalistic and anti-Semitic, but have as many differences as they do similarities). I would argue that the 'German Faith Movement' of Nazi Germany (which Hitler had a massive influence over- having himself been declared the 'end and savior' of the Reformation, a new prophet, etc) is an evolution of the earlier appearing 'Positive Christianity'.
#46AynRandySavagePosted 1/14/2013 5:34:11 PM
Ivashanko posted...

You are confusing the Positive Christianity of Chamberlain and Burnouf for the Positive Christianity in the Nazi Party (which would still fall into my early question of whether a true heresy could be created by unbelievers- the founders of Higher Criticism Positive Christianity were 'rationalists', the mass majority of whom out-rightly rejected the miracles in the Bible). The Positive Christianity in the German Party adopted these ideas, but changed many of them (I would suggest reading the early writings of the doctrine of Positive Christianity and compare them to the latter- they are both nationalistic and anti-Semitic, but have as many differences as they do similarities). I would argue that the 'German Faith Movement' of Nazi Germany (which Hitler had a massive influence over- having himself been declared the 'end and savior' of the Reformation, a new prophet, etc) is an evolution of the earlier appearing 'Positive Christianity'.


It's not that I'm confusing them, I just don't see what relevant differences there are here. Especially since being a miracle-denier doesn't mean one can't be a Christian.
#47IvashankoPosted 1/14/2013 5:38:46 PM
It's not that I'm confusing them, I just don't see what relevant differences there are here. Especially since being a miracle-denier doesn't mean one can't be a Christian.

Have you read the early texts of Positive Christianity and compared them with the latter? This isn't meant to be mean spirited- I'm just not a hundred percent sure how anyone could not see the differences in tone, structure, and theological beliefs that separate the two.

And by 'rationalists' what I probably should have said was 'deists', though I admit I struggle with the idea that one can be a Christian and deny the Resurrection and Divinity of Christ.
#48AynRandySavagePosted 1/14/2013 5:46:26 PM
Ivashanko posted...


Have you read the early texts of Positive Christianity and compared them with the latter? This isn't meant to be mean spirited- I'm just not a hundred percent sure how anyone could not see the differences in tone, structure, and theological beliefs that separate the two.


A little bit, and the differences are definitely noticeable, just unimportant in this case.

And by 'rationalists' what I probably should have said was 'deists', though I admit I struggle with the idea that one can be a Christian and deny the Resurrection and Divinity of Christ.


I can't see Chamberlain as anything like a deist really.
#49IvashankoPosted 1/14/2013 6:06:25 PM
A little bit, and the differences are definitely noticeable, just unimportant in this case.

Can you elaborate? Why do you believe they are unimportant?

I can't see Chamberlain as anything like a deist really.

Chamberlain, like the others, upheld his political-racial ideology beyond anything else. I suppose 'deist' isn't the word I'm looking for either. I still like 'rationalist' but my English is not always good enough to find the correct term to describe these kind of situations.

I accept most Christian heresies as being Christian, but if one rejects the divinity of Christ (as many early Positive Christians did- including, unless my memory is very faulty, Chamberlain, as stated in a variety of his letters to his one of his close friends. But Chamberlain alone signifies one key difference between early and Nazi Positive Christianity- Chamberlain hated social-Darwinism, completely and explicitly denying it whenever he had the chance (he belonged to the school of intellectual thought known as 'gestalt', which is how he was able to combined hatred of social-Darwinism with racial ideology), while latter Positive Christianity would embrace it and codify it into its very DNA.
#50AynRandySavagePosted 1/14/2013 6:44:57 PM
The only relevant differences between early Pre-Nazi and Post-Nazi Positive Christianity would be whether the anti-semitic and nationalist aspects were created totally artificially. That would justify the argument that (you made) that a Christian sect isn't Christian if its leaders don't at all believe it(which I'm not quite sure I agree with to begin with)

Since the rational, political, anti-Semitic aspects of Positive Christianity, namely seeing Jesus as a non-jew who fought against the Jews and had mythically positive German characteristics all predated Nazism, you can't say it was the Nazis who made it up. So if the Nazis didn't make it up, you can only say, at best, that they pretended to follow a pre-existing sect of Christianity.