Did Christianity Inspire The Holocaust?

[WinePusher]

Was Christianity An Influence Of The Holocaust and Adolf Hitler?

Personally, I've seen the people who agree with that statement make two claims. That it was fueled by Roman Catholic Anti-Semiticism, or it was ignited by Martin Luther's replacement theology. I would contend that Christianity was used as a vesel of propoganda that made Hitler's message more potent.

I would dispute the assertion that the Christian God and the Christian Bible inspired/caused the holocaust and motivated Hitler to action. Social Darwinism played much more of a factor in it and the claim that Hitlers was a bible believeing Christian seems to be unfounded.

[WinePusher]

u]Why do some Christians have feelings of animosity towards the Jews?[/u]

My take on this would be that some Christians do view Jews as the people who killed their savior, this view is very misinformed though. The history between Christians and Jews also is very complex, the Jews persecuted the Early Christian Church to an extent and when the Church became more of a powerful entity during the Dark Ages the Jews were shunned and treated like outcasts wtih many polemics between the Jews and Christians. So, in summary, there of course existed a component within Christianity that Hitler manipulated and exploited in order to further his own agenda, but I seriosuly doubt Christianity sparked and gave rise to his ideas.

[cnorman18]

I'm repeating this with some edits and additions, because I'm getting the impression that nobody saw it.

The Christian Church did, inarguably and absolutely, teach antisemitism in its most vicious form as a formal tenet of the faith for more than a thousand years. For that crime, the Church is responsible; and for that crime, the Church as a whole has never taken responsibility. Though most denominations have renounced that evil teaching,, some even explicitly so, more needs to be done. Just as "affirmative action" is an effort to redress the generational wrongs of the past, some "affirmative action," that is, explicit and emphatic teaching AGAINST antisemitism, is needed on the part of the Church to stamp out and reverse the centuries of damage that has already been done by this millenium-long institutional bigotry. That damage remains, and continues, to this very day. Renouncing these evil teachings is not enough. They must be explicitly preached and taught AGAINST. Antisemitism is very much alive today, and even the Blood Libel is not extinct. It has been argued as fact on this very forum. Look here. It is also promoted by government-sponsored media in the Arab world, along with much more old-school Nazi-style antisemitism -- and the writings of Luther and Chrysostom and other Church documents are still used to support it.

More evidence that the Church has not done enough? There are members posting on this forum as we speak who have not entirely left these teachings behind. Teaching "replacement theology" in any form, including that Jews are doomed to Hell without Jesus, is still beating that false and evil drum, no matter how much that is denied or how many doctrinal or Scriptural or institutional justifications are given for it. The New Testament still has Jews shouting, "May his death be on our heads and those of our children!" and until that teaching is explicitly renounced by the Church, that bleeding wound -- to the Church, not the Jews -- remains untreated and unhealed.

That evil teaching, and therefore Christianity, did not directly inspire or cause the Holocaust; but without it, the Holocaust could certainly never have happened, and with few exceptions, the Church did nothing to prevent it. After it was set in motion, some Christians worked against it, but the overwheming majority did nothing, or were complicit. The guards and the officers and supervisors at the thousands of concentration camps were virtually all Christians. It's not nearly enough to say that they were "bad Christians"; they are prima facie evidence that the Church was a bad Church, in that time and place - the Western World in the middle of the 20th century. That has never been admitted nor atoned for, and instead of humility and repentance, we see before us Christians who are still trying to shift the blame away from the responsibility of their faith and Church for preparing the ground and making it fertile for these horrors, and for leading and directing the centuries of horrors that preceded them.

[Board]

I 100% agree with cnorman18 on this issue.

A good site that I find well written and researched on this very topic is here:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Several pages of quotes from speeched, letters to the media, journals, letters from Cardinals, etc. are all documented here along with commentary.

Especially the section on the state of the Christian faith in Europe during the war:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm

We all know Hitler was a monster and his actions are not representative of the Christian Church as it is seen today.

What I take issue with is people now distancing themselves from the events and calling Hitler an atheist which goes against all historical evidence we have today.

...instead of humility and repentance, we see before us Christians who are still trying to shift the blame...

[McCulloch]

The Christian Church did, inarguably and absolutely, teach antisemitism in its most vicious form as a formal tenet of the faith for more than a thousand years.

But without excising portions of their Holy Bible, how can antisemitism be removed from Christianity? I have the same question with regard to the blatant sexism which has plagued the Christian Church and still does for those who actually believe what is written in their Bible.

Antisemitism is very much alive today, and even the Blood Libel is not extinct. It has been argued as fact on this very forum.

It cannot die while it remains a part of their Bible.

Teaching "replacement theology" in any form, including that Jews are doomed to Hell without Jesus, is still beating that false and evil drum, no matter how much that is denied or how many doctrinal or Scriptural or institutional justifications are given for it.

Are you saying that Christians should renounce Paul, who clearly expounds supersessionism? Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Scofield Reference Bible, Pius XII are all to be refuted and rejected.

Catholic Church does officially teach that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. While acting as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,

God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.

The New Testament still has Jews shouting, "May his death be on our heads and those of our children!" and until that teaching is explicitly renounced by the Church, that bleeding wound -- to the Church, not the Jews -- remains untreated and unhealed.

The solution is then to reject the New Testament as a bigoted archaic remnant from history. I'm good with that, but how many Christians are?

[nygreenguy]

Catholic Church does officially teach that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. While acting as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,

God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.

I forgot where I read this but I saw somewhere where the catholic church says they shouldnt bother converting the jews because they are already gods people and are already "saved".

Man, wish I could find that again.

[cnorman18]

The Christian Church did, inarguably and absolutely, teach antisemitism in its most vicious form as a formal tenet of the faith for more than a thousand years.

But without excising portions of their Holy Bible, how can antisemitism be removed from Christianity? I have the same question with regard to the blatant sexism which has plagued the Christian Church and still does for those who actually believe what is written in their Bible.

Antisemitism is very much alive today, and even the Blood Libel is not extinct. It has been argued as fact on this very forum.

It cannot die while it remains a part of their Bible.

Teaching "replacement theology" in any form, including that Jews are doomed to Hell without Jesus, is still beating that false and evil drum, no matter how much that is denied or how many doctrinal or Scriptural or institutional justifications are given for it.

Are you saying that Christians should renounce Paul, who clearly expounds supersessionism? Justin Martyr, Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Scofield Reference Bible, Pius XII are all to be refuted and rejected.

Catholic Church does officially teach that the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled and replaced by the New Covenant in Christ. While acting as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,

God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.

The New Testament still has Jews shouting, "May his death be on our heads and those of our children!" and until that teaching is explicitly renounced by the Church, that bleeding wound -- to the Church, not the Jews -- remains untreated and unhealed.

The solution is then to reject the New Testament as a bigoted archaic remnant from history. I'm good with that, but how many Christians are?

Doesn't matter. Many Christian thinkers have already found their way to this understanding; even Paul isn't necessarily committed to the kind of uncompromising supersession theology that's promoted by many, even most, conservative Christians. Romans 11 doesn't exactly read like a blanket indictment and condemnation of the Jews.

In any case, dogmatism that serves to justify bigotry must be scrapped without compromise. How it's theologically justified isn't my problem. I've posted this many times, a dictum of Torah study from the mouth of my own rabbi: "If you see something in the Torah that you know beyond doubt to be untrue, there are two possibilities: either you do not understand the Torah properly, or the Torah is wrong." Notice that the third alternative -- rejecting our own rational thought and moral sense in favor of dogmatism -- is not available.

If your religion requires, justifies, or condones hatred or inhumanity, there's something wrong with it; and if it's broke, you fix it. We had to learn to live without our Temple, without a nation, without homes, without the right to worship as we chose, and without even the freedom to live and be who we were without being tortured, murdered, and exiled. Somehow we've carried on. The Christians can damned well learn to live without spitting on the religion and the people whose heritage they claim to revere. I don't think it's too much to ask; and if any Christians do, they're part of the problem.

[Lux]

Generally, I will invoke the "Atheists did Communist Russia" card when a non-believer try's to point out all the horrors of Religion and Christianity, such as the Witch Burnings and the Holy Wars. The point of me doing so is to show that strife and genocide is not exclusive to Christianity only.

You accept that Stalin's atheism led him to kill millions of people, but you disregard the idea that Hitler being raised a catholic played any role in the Holocaust? You're applying a double standard.

Let's look at the similarities between them.

Hitler was a power-driven, totalitarian dictator who used fear and repression to keep his enemies in line and admittedly would have done anything to keep all the power of Germany concentrated in his person. He secluded, tortured and killed millions of people because they were members of particular religions, political affiliation or races.

Stalin was a power-driven, totalitarian dictator who used fear and repression to keep his enemies in line and would have done anything to annihilate any competitors for power in Russia (including churches and church officials) and so to keep all the power to himself. He killed and tortured many people due to their religion or political affiliation.

The key word here is power. I see no evidence against both of them being driven by power alone, and I don't see how you can accept that Stalin was driven by his atheism but Hitler was not driven by Christianity.


The witch hunts are different, they were performed by the church itself and not by individuals belonging to that church. Furthermore, they can be supported with Bible quotes.

[Nikku]

Same thing could be said about the Crusades, one of the biggest collaborations of failure in Christianity. Remember that Jesus did not want to start his own religion, Christianity arouse with the generation after his disciples. This is why I am Agnostic, no one can speak for Jesus except he himself, and maybe some of his direct disciples.

[East of Eden]

To start, it is obvious from his actions, that Hitler was not a Bible believing Christian.

However, the deep seeded antisemitism that he tapped into, that resonated with the German people, has roots in Christian mythology. Luther was quite evidently antisemitic.

Actually, Luther's early statements were very sympathetic to the Jews, kind of like early parts of the Koran. The later statements were inexcusable. That happens when Christians let themselves be influenced by the surrounding culture rather than letting Scripture transform the culture.

The continued existence of faithful Jews is a source of embarrassment to many forms of Christian theology.

Why would it be an embarrassment? Jesus said, wide is the path leading to destruction, narrow is the one leading to life.

If Jesus was the messiah prophesied by the Jewish scriptures, then why do so many reasonable people continue to deny him?

I don't know, why did they reject Jeremiah and many other Old Testament prophets?

"Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered," Acts 7:52

Jesus alludes to this situtation in this parable:

There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet

[East of Eden]

You accept that Stalin's atheism led him to kill millions of people, but you disregard the idea that Hitler being raised a catholic played any role in the Holocaust? You're applying a double standard.

Let's look at the similarities between them.

Hitler was a power-driven, totalitarian dictator who used fear and repression to keep his enemies in line and admittedly would have done anything to keep all the power of Germany concentrated in his person. He secluded, tortured and killed millions of people because they were members of particular religions, political affiliation or races.

Stalin was a power-driven, totalitarian dictator who used fear and repression to keep his enemies in line and would have done anything to annihilate any competitors for power in Russia (including churches and church officials) and so to keep all the power to himself. He killed and tortured many people due to their religion or political affiliation.

The key word here is power. I see no evidence against both of them being driven by power alone, and I don't see how you can accept that Stalin was driven by his atheism but Hitler was not driven by Christianity.

Here's another similarity: Both were unrestrained by the teachings of Christ or any though of future rewards and punishment. After Hitler's planned removal of the Jews, his intention was to go after the Christians.

The witch hunts are different, they were performed by the church itself and not by individuals belonging to that church.

Not a good comparison. I think in the case of the Salem witch trials 19 died. Stalin at one point was killing 35,000 a week.

Furthermore, they can be supported with Bible quotes.

Only if you take the Bible out of context using verses intended for the Old Testament theocracy of Israel. Jesus harmed nobody, nor did He tell anyone else to.