The holocaust, masterminded by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime, devoured 11 million lives, among them were 6 million Jews, and the other 5 million comprising of people with mental and physical disabilities, communists, resistance fighters, Slavic people, homosexuals, priests, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and anarchists etc.
The antagonists of Historic Christianity argue that Adolf Hitler was a Christian, thereby accusing Historic Christianity as the primary cause for the holocaust. The defenders of Historic Christianity counter-argue to deny Hitler’s Christianity; instead suggesting that he may have been an atheist and that his non-Christian worldview was the primary cause of the holocaust.
If Hitler was a Christian, would Hitler’s Christianity hurt Historic Christianity? In order to think through this theme, let us consider the case for Hitler’s Christianity, the case for Hitler’s non-Christianity, and the interpretation of Hitler’s apparent Christianity.
Hitler Was A Christian
Richard Dawkins argues that Hitler was not an atheist but a Catholic Christian. Dawkins quoted Hitler’s 1922 speech wherein he referred to Jesus as “my Lord and Savior.”1
Popular atheist author Michael A. Sherlock in his article, “The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot” argues for Hitler’s Christianity, “…Hitler was a Christian. This undeniable fact couldn’t be made any clearer than by his own confessions…
To begin, here are just a few of Hitler’s Christian confessions:
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” [3]
“The greatness of Christianity did not arise from attempts to make compromises with those philosophical opinions of the ancient world which had some resemblance to its own doctrine, but in the unrelenting and fanatical proclamation and defense of its own teaching.” [4]
“His [the Jew’s] life is of this world only and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as is character was foreign to the great Founder of this new creed two thousand years ago. And the Founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews…” [5]
Over and above these solid testimonies, there are other equally strong pieces of evidence that indicate that Hitler was a Christian, like the fact that his soldiers all wore the slogan, ‘Gott Mit Uns’ (God with us) on their belts, that his birthday was “celebrated from the pulpits until his death,” as Hitchens so eloquently put it, and that the Nazis published their own slightly revised Christian bible. [6]…”2
Hitler Was Not A Christian
As much as the atheist argues for Hitler’s Christianity, there is enough evidence to argue that Hitler was not a Christian.
Hitler and his Nazi regime were much influenced by the ideology of German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Hitler was consumed by the idea of “Superman” (who has a great “will to power” and would reign over other humans) that was taken from Nietzsche’s work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.”
Nietzsche’s sister, Elizabeth Förster-Nietzsche was married to Bernhard Förster, a prominent leader of the German anti-Semitic movement. Elizabeth was a friend of Hitler. Elizabeth influenced the Nazi regime to an extent that Hitler was influenced by the Nietzschean ideology.
Hitler was so fascinated by the Nietzschean ideology that he had copies of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” given to all his soldiers between 1933 and 1945. Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar at the invite of Elizabeth and proudly posed for photographs of him staring at the bust of Nietzsche.
When Hitler began his career, Germany was mostly a Christian nation. So Hitler often referred to himself as a follower of Christ. However, Hitler either imprisoned or executed more than 6000 clergymen on the charge of treasonable activity.
Significantly, after establishing the “National Reich Church” that projected Hitler as superman / god, Hitler banned the Bible and the cross. Bibles were replaced with copies of Mein Kampf and the cross was replaced with swastika.
Hitler also printed his version of the Bible, wherein words such as Messiah and Hallelujah were altered. Ten Commandments were revised to 12 Commandments. Hitler demanded worship; the Lord’s Prayer was revised, “Adolf Hitler, you are our great Fuhrer. Thy name makes the enemy tremble. Thy Third Reich comes; thy will alone is law upon the earth. Let us hear daily thy voice, and order us by thy leadership, for we will obey to the end, even with our lives We praise thee; hail Hitler Fuhrer my Fuhrer, given me by God. Protect and preserve my life for long. You saved Germany in time of need; I thank you for my daily bread; be with me for a long time, do not leave me, Fuhrer my Fuhrer, my faith, my light – hail, my Fuhrer.”3 This was recited by the Hitler Youth.
Hitler systematically gained control over the Protestant churches in Germany to make them an instrument of the Nazi regime. In response, the “Confessing Church” movement gained momentum within the German Protestant Churches to resist Hitler’s attempt.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian, pastor and a founding member of the “Confessing Church.” Bonhoeffer and other leaders of the Confessing Church opposed the Nazi regime and sought to establish the true identity of the Church. Ultimately, Bonhoeffer was executed by hanging.
Think about this; had Hitler been a genuine Christian what was the necessity for a Christian rebellion against Hitler? Christians subscribing to Historic Christianity fervently opposed Hitler to an extent that they risked their own lives. They were either imprisoned or executed for their anti-Hitler rebellion.
Would Hitler’s Christianity Hurt Historic Christianity?
When our atheist friend argues that Hitler was a self proclaimed Christian, should the defenders of Historic Christianity negate that argument to begin a street fight with the atheist? Debunking Hitler’s Christianity need not be the one and the only option for us.
The other option is to ask a question, “If Hitler was a Christian, was he a genuine Christian?” The atheist primarily posits Hitler’s self proclamation as evidence to his Christianity. Self proclamation is inadequate to one’s identity as a Christian. A genuine Christian not only proclaims himself to be a Christian, but also obeys Christ through his deeds.
Genuine Christians do not kill as Hitler did. The very extermination of the 11 million people screams against Hitler’s so-called Christianity. Hitler’s execution of the leadership of the confessing church that included Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who actually sought to establish the true identity of the church, is most surely not a genuine Christian’s deed.
Friedrich Nietzsche was not a Christian; he constantly attacked the Christian ideals. A genuine Christian would not follow the Nietzschean ideology.
Significantly, a genuine Christian would not elevate himself into a position of “Superman” demanding worship of any form whatsoever. On the other hand, Hitler, so fascinated by Friedrich Nietzsche, and so desperate to be a superman, demanded that people revere him.
Therefore, however which way we may want to think, Hitler, even though he may have been a self-proclaimed Christian, was not a genuine Christian. So Hitler’s Christianity does not harm Historic Christianity, and any claim to Hitler’s Christianity can and should be ignored completely.
Endnotes:
Websites cited were last accessed on September 8, 2016.
3http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/churchhistory/godandhitler/
This article was originally posted at http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2016/09/so-what-if-adolf-hitler-was-christian.html
With respect to historical precision the topic of The Age of Reason and the conditions pre/intra/post are revealing once a bit of light is brought upon it all as the opening essay at http://strangenotions.com/how-christians-actually-began-the-age-of-reason/ alludes to. That makes for an interesting segue into the following in that they are both related by long histories of misinformation. So with that background, though a different topic than the Age of Reason, four items for added context with respect to historical precision:
One:
“Atheists abandon “religion causes war” argument….” – from http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheists-abandon-religion-causes-war.html
Quote:
“Atheists abandon “religion causes war” argument: Scott Atran is the first atheist to publicly come out and admit the historical nonexistence of the oft-claimed connection between religion and war in Foreign Policy:
“Moreover, the chief complaint against religion — that it is history’s prime instigator of intergroup conflict — does not withstand scrutiny. Religious issues motivate only a small minority of recorded wars. The Encyclopedia of Wars surveyed 1,763 violent conflicts across history; only 123 (7 percent) were religious. A BBC-sponsored “God and War” audit, which evaluated major conflicts over 3,500 years and rated them on a 0-to-5 scale for religious motivation (Punic Wars = 0, Crusades = 5), found that more than 60 percent had no religious motivation. Less than 7 percent earned a rating greater than 3. There was little religious motivation for the internecine Russian and Chinese conflicts or the world wars responsible for history’s most lethal century of international bloodshed.”
Not only does Atran accept the argument I originally presented in a WND article before refining it in The Irrational Atheist, but his article is actually much less of a Fighting Withdrawal than the misleading subtitle – What we don’t understand about religion just might kill us – would lead the casual reader to believe.”
Atran doesn’t mention either me or TIA, but TIA is clearly the source as not only is the argument the same as the one I first presented in 2004, but the war count of 123 also happens to be uniquely mine. The actual count from The Encyclopedia of Wars index is not 123, but 121 – they made some errors, in my opinion, counting some non-religious wars such as the Fourth Crusade as religious and vice-versa – but the authors of the encyclopedia actually failed to fully recognize the implications of their historical catalog concerning the historical irrelevance of religion to war. This can be seen in their Introduction:
“Wars have always arisen, and arise today, from territorial disputes, military rivalries, conflicts of ethnicity, and strivings for commercial and economic advantage, and they have always depended on, and depend on today, pride, prejudice, coercion, envy, cupidity, competitiveness, and a sense of injustice. But for much of the world before the 17th century, these “reasons” for war were explained and justified, at least for the participants, by religion. Then around the middle of the 17th century, Europeans began to conceive of war as a legitimate means of furthering the interests of individual sovereigns…. The [French] revolution increased the size of the armed forces for European states from small professional outfits to huge conscript armies, whose citizen-soldiers needed more than reasons of state to risk their lives and fortunes for their rulers. The objectives of warfare were broadened from the conquest of this or that sliver of a kingdom to the spread of revolutionary ideals, and through this ideological backdoor something like the fervor of religion slipped back into war along with the mass of conscripts. Once again wars needed to be in some sense “holy” or, in the more secular lexicon of the times, “just”.”
Now, it doesn’t bother me terribly when people actively seek to avoid giving me credit for my more original ideas. I’ve learned to expect it, which is why you’ll never find this argument on Wikipedia even when everyone eventually comes to accept it as the historical fact that it truly is. I only find it genuinely irksome when others subsequently try to take credit for them or to claim they were always part of the status quo. The important thing is that the ideas are getting out there and the memes are spreading, and removing that specific arrow from the atheist’s rhetorical arsenal was always my main polemical object in presenting the argument……..
End quote.
Two:
In his book The Irrational Atheist, he also notes that the Inquisition didn’t kill “millions” as is claimed:
Quote:
“In light of its nightmarish reputation, it will surely surprise those who believe that millions of people died in the Spanish Inquisition to learn that throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, less than three people per year were sentenced to death by the Inquisition throughout the Spanish Empire, which ranged from Spain to Sicily and Peru.399 Secular historians given access to the Vatican’s archives in 1998 discovered that of the 44,674 individuals tried between 1540 and 1700, only 804 were recorded as being relictus culiae saeculari.400 The 763-page report indicates that only 1 percent of the 125,000 trials recorded over the entire inquisition ultimately resulted in execution by the secular authority, which means that throughout its infamous 345-year history, 401 the dread Spanish Inquisition was less than one-fourteenth as deadly on an annual basis as children’s bicycles.”
Day, Vox (2008-02-01). The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens (p. 219).
End quote.
Three:
A Non-Theist upon reading the data stated something along the lines of,
My reply:
Four:
Though neither being the “winner” nor being the “loser” on the world stage in this odd category is ultimately any sort of full and final truth-referent by which to settle God / No-God questions, by all metrics the “winner” is always thus far (…when such is unpacked…) the non-religious per se. As it happens, this link to non-religion’s winner as the category causing more deaths is from a more interesting approach than the usual monotone cataloging of stats. As for Just War / Unjust War, in the Non-Theist’s universe constituted of irreducible indifference such terms are painfully illusory.
End.
The content of the first link (in point number 4) is copied below:
Quote:
Was the 20th Century Really the Most Violent?
That is the question posed and answered by Steven Pinker (Pinker 2011: 193–200), and his answer is likely to startle many people.
First, let us consider the man depicted in this painting below: [ picture ] You might recognize him already. This is Genghis Khan (c. 1162–1227), and the evidence would suggest that he rivaled the worst 20th century dictators in the number of people killed during his wars of conquest.
Of course, in terms of absolute numbers, no one doubts that the 20th century was the most violent in human history.
Yet immediately one must point out that the 20th century also had a greater population than any previous century. The question “how violent is this war compared to that war?” requires per capita death rates, not absolute numbers.
The table below ranks the most violent episodes in Medieval and Modern human history, and all dates are AD.
The third column (“Est. Death Toll”) shows the estimated death toll in millions, and the fourth column (“Adjusted Death Toll”) shows us what the death toll would have been for any conflict before the 20th century, but adjusted for the 20th century population.
That is to say, if Tamerlane had lived in the 20th century, and his conquests had occurred with the same per capita death rate as they did in his own time, how many people would have died?
What do you notice?
Event | Century | Est. Death Toll* | Adjusted Death Toll*
* both in millions
(1) An Lushan Revolt | 8th | 36 | 429
(2) Mongol Conquests | 13th | 40 | 278
(3) Mideast Slave Trade | 7th–19th | 19 | 132
(4) Fall of Ming Dynasty | 17th | 25 | 112
(5) Fall of Rome | 3rd-5th | 8 | 105
(6) Timur Lenk (Tamerlane) | 4th–15th | 17 | 100
(7) Killing of American Indians | 15th–19th | 20 | 92
(8) Atlantic Slave Trade | 15th–19th | 18 | 83
(9) Second World War | 20th | 55 | 55
(10) Taiping Rebellion 19th | 20 | 40
(11) Mao Zedong | 20th | 40 | 40
(12) British India | 19th | 17 | 35
(13) Thirty Years War | 17th | 7 | 32
(14) Russia’s Time of Troubles | 16th–17th | 5 | 23
(15) Josef Stalin | 20th | 20 | 20
(16) First World War | 20th | 15 | 15
(17) French Wars of Religion | 16th | 3 | 14
(18) Congo Free State | 19th–20th | 8 | 12
(19) Napoleonic Wars | 19th | 4 | 11
(20) Russian Civil War | 20th | 9 | 9
(21) Chinese Civil War | 20th | 3 | 3 (Pinker 2011: 195).
Notes
(1) Some of these atrocities were mostly caused by man-made (or preventable) famine, e.g., the death toll for Mao Zedong and British India.
What is most remarkable is that of the top 10, only the Second World War makes it onto that list, and only at number (9) in terms of per capita death rates.
All the other 10 most violent events of human history did not even occur in the 20th century.
The most murderous events of human history were the An Lushan Revolt in the 8th century AD China, and the Mongol Conquests of the 13th century AD.
The death toll from the Mongol Conquests was very high, and the 20th century equivalent would have been a conflict in which 278 million people died. By contrast, the Second World War killed some 55 million people.
That would make Genghis Khan one of the worst monsters of history, and the eruption of essentially stateless nomads from the Eurasian steppe one of most violent events of human history.
Nor were the Mongols the first such invaders. Sedentary agricultural peoples down through the centuries – in Europe, the Near East and China – have been terrorised by steppe nomads many times in human history: we need only think of the (often stateless) Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths, Huns, Bulgars, Avars, Magyars, Tartars, Cumans, Khazars, Mughuals and Manchus. The wars of such people are remarkably consistent with Pinker’s thesis about higher levels of violence in stateless and tribal societies as compared with state-based societies.
End quote.
Adding context:
One can come at this from another direction, as in http://www.str.org/node/42580#.WVX0orpFxPY and the comment box to it (…it is STR’s “Two Theological Misunderstandings behind Objections to Deathbed Conversions”…).
Also, see:
[1] http://disq.us/p/1k1yo5k
[2] http://disq.us/p/1jtwil6
[3] http://disq.us/p/1jyxn30
Also, context on Ethical Evolution is overlapping:
[1] http://disq.us/p/1jt1tdq and
[2] http://disq.us/p/1jwt76b and
[3] http://disq.us/p/1jwuonk and
[4] http://disq.us/p/1jz2xjf
(…Disqus can be fussy with links to specific comments and, depending on browser variables, it may take a few seconds to get to the specific comment…)
The metaphysics of Privation impact this discussion in key/critical ways. See “The Metaphysics of Privation'”, by David Oderberg (… http://www.davidsoderberg.co.uk/home …). Abstract: http://www.davidsoderberg.co.uk/home/abstracts and the full essay: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUiebE9RM1pOTkZ6dFU/edit
Adolph Hitler being a Christian or not is moot. Germany was majority Lutheran, Italy majority Catholic, and Russia Russian orthodox. All three nations of Christians committing atrocities against other Christians.
What conclusions can we draw from this?
The counter-argument the atheist could make, of course, is this: how do you know that Hitler wasn’t the genuine Christian? What makes you sure that you know who is a genuine Christian? And how do you know that you are a genuine Christian?
If you are going to make the argument that Hitler wasn’t a genuine Christian, you must establish the authority upon which that determination rests. If your authority is the Bible, the counter-arguments will be “what translation?”, “whose interpretation of Scripture matters?” and so forth. This doesn’t seem to me to be an argument that will persuade many, if any, atheists.
Ultimately, though, doesn’t “not a genuine Christian” mean the same thing as “not a Christian”?
Q1: “how do you know that Hitler wasn’t the genuine Christian?”
A1: “The other option is to ask a question, “If Hitler was a Christian, was he a genuine Christian?” The atheist primarily posits Hitler’s self proclamation as evidence to his Christianity. Self proclamation is inadequate to one’s identity as a Christian. A genuine Christian not only proclaims himself to be a Christian, but also obeys Christ through his deeds.
Genuine Christians do not kill as Hitler did. The very extermination of the 11 million people screams against Hitler’s so-called Christianity. Hitler’s execution of the leadership of the confessing church that included Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who actually sought to establish the true identity of the church, is most surely not a genuine Christian’s deed.
Friedrich Nietzsche was not a Christian; he constantly attacked the Christian ideals. A genuine Christian would not follow the Nietzschean ideology.
Significantly, a genuine Christian would not elevate himself into a position of “Superman” demanding worship of any form whatsoever. On the other hand, Hitler, so fascinated by Friedrich Nietzsche, and so desperate to be a superman, demanded that people revere him.”
————————————————————————————————————–
Q2: how do you know that you are a genuine Christian?
A2: Cf. Deut 6: 5…I know it from my love for the Lord and the willingness to lay down my life for HIS sake.
————————————————————————————————————–
The atheist does not believe in God, so the credibility of the Bible is moot (as far as he is concerned, I dont think we need to go into textual criticism etc. with an unbelieving atheist.).
The apologetic endeavor is towards honest seekers. These are those who would listen to what you and I have to say and consider it honestly in their heart.
—————————————————————————————————————
Q3: Ultimately, though, doesn’t “not a genuine Christian” mean the same thing as “not a Christian”?
A3: YES, from God’s vantage point, and NO from man’s vantage point.
I may proclaim to be a Christian, but may not be one in my deeds, which need not necessarily be known to men. But God alone knows me totally. So I may be a Christian in the eyes of the world, but am not a Christian in the eyes of God.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Thanks much…
Germany is majority Christian (Lutheran Majority and Catholic Minority) so what difference does it make if Hitler was Christian? Considering how many Christians partook in the slaughter?
I posted a rather lengthy response…but it has disappeared….
🙁
I saw that you had replied, and when I came to read it, it was gone. I thought perhaps you had deleted it. Checking my email, I found your original reply, which I have pasted below:
*******************************************************************************************
Q1: “how do you know that Hitler wasn’t the genuine Christian?”
A1: “The other option is to ask a question, “If Hitler was a Christian, was he a genuine Christian?” The atheist primarily posits Hitler’s self proclamation as evidence to his Christianity. Self proclamation is inadequate to one’s identity as a Christian. A genuine Christian not only proclaims himself to be a Christian, but also obeys Christ through his deeds.
Genuine Christians do not kill as Hitler did. The very extermination of the 11 million people screams against Hitler’s so-called Christianity. Hitler’s execution of the leadership of the confessing church that included Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who actually sought to establish the true identity of the church, is most surely not a genuine Christian’s deed.
Friedrich Nietzsche was not a Christian; he constantly attacked the Christian ideals. A genuine Christian would not follow the Nietzschean ideology.
Significantly, a genuine Christian would not elevate himself into a position of “Superman” demanding worship of any form whatsoever. On the other hand, Hitler, so fascinated by Friedrich Nietzsche, and so desperate to be a superman, demanded that people revere him.”
———————————————————————————————-
Q2: how do you know that you are a genuine Christian?
A2: Cf. Deut 6: 5…I know it from my love for the Lord and the willingness to lay down my life for HIS sake.
———————————————————————————————-
The atheist does not believe in God, so the credibility of the Bible is moot (as far as he is concerned, I dont think we need to go into textual criticism etc. with an unbelieving atheist.).
The apologetic endeavor is towards honest seekers. These are those who would listen to what you and I have to say and consider it honestly in their heart.
———————————————————————————————-
Q3: Ultimately, though, doesn’t “not a genuine Christian” mean the same thing as “not a Christian”?
A3: YES, from God’s vantage point, and NO from man’s vantage point.
I may proclaim to be a Christian, but may not be one in my deeds, which need not necessarily be known to men. But God alone knows me totally. So I may be a Christian in the eyes o f the world, but am not a Christian in the eyes of God.
———————————————————————————————-
Thanks much…
*******************************************************************************************
I don’t have time to respond at length, but you’re right that this response would work with an honest seeker, not with a committed atheist, because the latter would not accept the authority of the Bible in such a discussion unless you could first establish convincingly the authority of the Bible.
Thank you for re-posting my response, Robert. IMO, apologetics is meant only for the honest seeker.
The ardent atheist would even argue for married bachelors and square circles 🙂
Hitler being Christian is moot. antisemitism was rife in Christian Europe Jews were called the Jesus killers. World war 2 wasn’t a religions war however it was a war that pitted Christian against Christian, if this isn’t a failure of Christianity then what was it?
That you insist on affirming the Christian metaphysic with respect to God, Man, Privation, and love’s indestructible Self-Giving therein is not surprising. But what is bizarre is that you’re seemingly unaware that your complaints do precisely that. Jews killing Jews? Christians killing Christians? Brother…. killing ….brother? You seem to think there is something new under the sun. Are you really that unread? Surely you’re making up this pretentious act of surprise and befuddlement. The proverbial key described earlier remains unaddressed by your apparent pretending, for obvious reasons, given that you’ve no idea whether or not other minds exist…. since you create them in your own image. You’re all over the map of late. Very unfocused. Try focusing on the proverbial map.
Am I that unread or are do you read too much?
It’s really simple, but you are trying to change the topic to metaphysics which doesn’t explain anything of the events on the ground, why a Christian nation as Germany would wind up as the aggressors of world war 2 and creators of the holocaust which killed millions.
Arguing about Hitler’s Christianity is moot, its how Christian Germans rationalized their actions supporting Hitler, that is the question.
Time and circumstance makes no difference as to the definition of The Good. When a man kills a man and when a brother kills a brother — in any century and in any circumstance — how that act is rationalized by said man or by said brother is irrelevant as per our landing strip in how we define The Good. Why? Because of that Key you keep ignoring which juxtaposes mutable contingencies over against immutable necessities. The Key applies in all cases and in all centuries. That you ignore it isn’t surprising given what it costs. BTW, moral ontology isn’t new material. That you count moral ontology as irrelevant to moral explanation is bizarre.
Brother killing brother is anything but new. Change up and mix up the epistemology and the ontology is, through it all, the same. Despite that fact with respect to moral ontology far too many Non-Theists, when they are presented with said Key, ignore it and plow ahead, eyes closed, hands over their ears, and just keep shouting, “But knowledge is fragmented! But Christian’s sin! But love!“. That their emotive terms affirm the Christian metanarrative or the Christian metaphysic with respect to God, Man, Privation, and love’s indestructible Self-Giving therein, is quite satisfying for the Christian. There is a reason that both the Old Testament and the New Testament affirm the fact that Sinai is *not* God’s Ideal for Mankind forever. There is a reason that love’s timeless reciprocity necessarily precedes and also necessarily outreaches not only Sinai but also contingent beings such as Mankind. That narrative is what we find within the peculiar set of referents which come to us through the ancient Hebrew as it (…that peculiar set of referents…) carries forward into the Christian metaphysic. The question is whether or not that unique set of referents with respect to [1] God (…aka “Ultimate Reality”…) and [2] Mankind and [3] the brutally repeatable moral experience of Mankind within the pains of Privation and [4] love’s timeless and irreducible Self-Giving vis-à-vis the milieu of “Trinity” all present our perception(s) with more explanatory power and lucidity than the various Non-Theistic moral ontologies and what they bring to the table.
It’s not as complicated as you wish it to be. The Christian metaphysic finds love’s timeless reciprocity at the end of all threads and your definitions are clearly wrapped up in some Non-Christian metaphysic with respect to love. Without conmenting on H.’s actual locus of trust with respect to his own contingent and therefore “necessarily insufficient self” vs. the Necessary and therefore “All Sufficient Other“, the fact that you are conflating and/or equating “Christians sin” for “Not a Christian” is only one minor and sloppy downstream symptom of your far wider, upstream confusion. You don’t need the Bible to reason to the ends of love’s irreducible substratum as such by force of logic will drive you out of Non-Theism and into Theism. That or else at some ontological seam somewhere you’ll (necessarily) annihilate love’s irreducible landscape of Self/Other. That annihilation is why (…rightly per N-Theism…) Hume, Rosenberg, Ruse, Carroll and others find no obligation upon reason (…in her proper role of truth-finder…) to chase after love’s irreducible self-giving.
Without having to agree or disagree on whether or not A.H. was or was not Christian, it is clear that this is not as complicated as you seem to wish it to be. The Christian metaphysic finds love’s timeless reciprocity at the end of all threads and your definitions are clearly wrapped up inside of some sort of Non-Christian metaphysic with respect to love and love’s unavoidable landscape amid self/other.
Be careful about making the mistake of assuming the Christian metaphysic defines “The Good” by any contingent any-thing. That’s the proverbial *key*. What Christians and Non-Christians do, do not do, know, do not know, think, do not think, believe, do not believe, and so on down the ontological line does not and in fact cannot supplant, displace, define, or outdistance – in any sense whatsoever – the “…metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility…” vis-à-vis the triune God. For example:
Without having to agree or disagree on whether or not A.H. was or was not Christian, it just is a fact that History contradicts your claim that Christian’s don’t commit sins such as murder and even systematic, calculated murder, and even in the name of God. But that doesn’t define anything as Good/Right for obvious reasons vis-à-vis metaphysical necessity as opposed to contingent beings.
Good luck showing otherwise either within or outside of the Christian metaphysic.
In the same way, you don’t seem to be differentiating John Newton’s theft and murder of countless (…one the one hand…) and his interface with God (…on the other hand…).
In the same way, your claim is that upon coming to sight, to light, that one progresses nicely into love’s landscape. But Peter and his racism of “Clean/Unclean” amid Gentile/Jew in the book of Acts and in fact observational reality in general contradict that premise. And that is Peter after three years of walking with Christ. Can Christians be racist? Scripture says yes, a man can be BOTH [A] A Christian AND [B] sinful in such loveless filth within his present mutable, changing, condition.
Without commenting on A.H.’s actual locus of trust with respect to his own contingent and therefore “necessarily insufficient self” vs. God or vs. the Necessary Being and therefore “All Sufficient Other“, the fact that you are conflating and/or equating “Christians sin” for or to “Not a Christian” is yet another sloppy downstream symptom of your far wider, upstream confusions.
With respect to necessary, non-illusory love you are mistaken to fuss about the Bible as if voiding it helps you salvage anything here. Why? Because you don’t need the Bible to reason to the ends of love’s irreducible – non-illusory – substratum simply because by pure force of logic you will be driven out of Non-Theism and into Theism should you claim that your metaphysic affords “Love and Necessity”. Of course, once you leave Non-Theism behind you’ll have to then repeat the process with Pantheism, Idealism, Solipsism, Islam, and so on along with any other proverbial landing zone. It’s that or else at some ontological seam somewhere you’ll (necessarily) annihilate love’s irreducible landscape of Self/Other as you move through your logical progressions and thereby end up right where you started: a fundamentally illusory love.
That annihilation is why (….justifiably per N-Theism’s paradigmatic tools….) Hume, Rosenberg, Ruse, Carroll and others find no necessary obligation upon reason (…in her proper role of truth-finder…) to chase after love’s irreducible self-giving (… as discussed at http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2017/01/18/god-is-necessary-not-necessary-for-morality/ …). It’s just not wrong when the schoolyard bully beats up children. Not objectively wrong. The “content” there in the No-God paradigm inevitably slides into the useful-but-not-true category of syntax.
The interface of Necessity/Contingency as such relates to God/Man isn’t something you seem equipped to unpack in any honest Christian sense.
____________
LHRMSCBrown
Mine too. Oh well. I had a few replies to Robert but moving a paragraph around in an edit sent it to junk. I delete those before signing out because otherwise they stay in my Discus comment collection with large red labels…a bit distracting when searching later on etc.
Sorry, I meant mine was deleted too…..
Am not sure what’s happening bro…Sorry
It seems to not like edits. I edited it twice, once for spelling and once for html stuff, and on the second edit it went to junk. I’ve now gotten into the habit of going to other blogs, posting it, making sure it’s right, deleting it, coming here, and posting it….. but sometimes I don’t do that….
What men do whether good or evil does not define any metaphysic. Why? Because any act which any contingent being *does* cannot in itself define the Necessary. Referring to the sins of men, Christian or not, Atheist or not, as such relate to forced conversion to any set of claims, or any other act good or evil, sums to conflating men’s sins for metaphysics. Which is just sophomoric.
Without having to agree or disagree on whether or not A.H. was or was not Christian, it is clear that this is not as complicated as the average Non-Theist so often wishes to make it. The Christian metaphysic finds love’s timeless reciprocity at the end of all threads and the N-Theist’s stock definitions are clearly wrapped up inside of some sort of Non-Christian metaphysic with respect to love and love’s unavoidable landscape amid self/other.
We must be careful about making the mistake of assuming the Christian metaphysic defines “The Good” by any contingent any-thing. That’s the proverbial *key*. What Christians and Non-Christians do, do not do, know, do not know, think, do not think, believe, do not believe, and so on down the ontological line does not and in fact cannot supplant, displace, define, or outdistance – in any sense whatsoever – the “…metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility…” vis-à-vis the triune God. For example:
Without having to agree or disagree on whether or not A.H. was or was not Christian, it just is a fact that History contradicts our N-Theist’s stock uninformed claim that Christian’s don’t commit sins such as murder and even systematic, calculated murder, and even in the name of God. But that doesn’t define anything as Good/Right nor Beautiful/Lovely for obvious reasons vis-à-vis metaphysical necessity as opposed to contingent beings. Well, the reasons are obvious for anyone willing, and able, to think past the end of frail and mutable contingencies.
We wish our N-Theist friends good luck showing otherwise either within the Christian metaphysic or outside of the Christian metaphysic.
In the same way, N-Theists don’t seem to be differentiating John Newton’s theft and murder of countless (…one the one hand…) and his interface with God (…on the other hand…). In the same way, too often their claim is that upon coming to sight, to light, that one progresses nicely into love’s landscape. But Peter and his racism of “Clean/Unclean” amid Gentile/Jew in the book of Acts and in fact observational reality in general contradict that premise. And that is Peter after three years of walking with Christ. Can Christians be racist? Scripture says yes, a man can be BOTH [A] A Christian AND [B] sinful in such loveless filth within his present mutable, changing, condition. Scripture gets it right of course, whereas, the stock “But Da-Christians Da-Sin!” fussing of N-Theists pretty much opens and closes their analytical range.
Without commenting on A.H.’s actual locus of trust with respect to his own contingent and therefore “necessarily insufficient self” vs. God or vs. the Necessary Being and therefore “All Sufficient Other“, the fact that such N-Theistic complaints are conflating and/or equating “Christians sin” for or to “Not a Christian” is yet another category of sloppy downstream symptoms of his far wider, upstream confusions.
With respect to necessary, non-illusory love our N-Theist friends are mistaken to fuss about the Bible and talking as if voiding it out of the discussion “….because it’s not the N-Theist’s standard/belief set etc….” somehow helps him salvage anything here. Why? Because he does not need the Bible to reason to the ends of love’s irreducible – non-illusory – substratum simply because by pure force of logic he will be driven out of Non-Theism and into Theism should he claim for himself a metaphysic which affords “Love and Necessity”. Of course, once he leaves Non-Theism behind he’ll have to then repeat the process with Pantheism, Idealism, Solipsism, Islam, and so on along with any other proverbial landing zone. It’s that or else at some ontological seam somewhere he’ll (necessarily) annihilate love’s irreducible landscape of Self/Other as he moves through his logical progressions and thereby he’ll end up right where he started: a fundamentally illusory love.
That annihilation is why (….justifiably per N-Theism’s paradigmatic tools….) Hume, Rosenberg, Ruse, Carroll and others find no necessary obligation upon reason (…in her proper role of truth-finder…) to chase after love’s irreducible self-giving (… as discussed at http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2017/01/18/god-is-necessary-not-necessary-for-morality/ …). It’s just not wrong when the schoolyard bully beats up children. Not objectively wrong. The “content” there in the No-God paradigm inevitably slides into the useful-but-not-true category of syntax.
The interface of Necessity/Contingency as such relates to God/Man isn’t something the average N-Theist is equipped to unpack in any honest Christian sense, hence we find him forever engaging his litany of Non-Christian premises and going on As-If he was actually giving a rebuttal against (actual) Christian premises.
_____________
SCBrownLHRM
Germany was a Lutheran Majority nation the time of World War 2 and World War 1 for that matter, so what does it matter if Hitler was or wasn’t an true Christian?
Key.
Key?
Germany at the time of World War 2 was a Christian nation, is this incorrect?
World War 2 wasn’t a religious war but it was fought by Christians against Christians, is this incorrect?
This really has nothing do with with “Non-Theists” but more so a question of history.
Wrong or right, that’s a key point with respect to defining reality. Hence the proverbial *key* described earlier.
“But where is your degree!!” Typically what we see from too many of our Non-Theist friends is an evasion of the actual topic at hand (…knowledge of physical systems in the context of the ultimate self-explanatory principle…), such as discussed at [1] http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-is-there-anything-at-all-its-simple.html and also in part at [2] http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/02/parfit-on-brute-facts.html and also at [3] http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/03/an-exchange-with-keith-parsons-part-iv.html (…for context and so on…). Rather than discuss the topic, typically there are all sorts of “changing-of-the-topics” such as asking folks how on earth they have any right to make claims about love and pain as they suffer through the death of their beloved when they — after all — never did get their degree in love and pain. Because degrees matter more than premises and claims made by claim-makers. Oddly, when biologists make reasonable proposals with respect to philosophical questions, the Christian gets it and does not shout, “But your degree on love and pain! Where is it!” Rather, one would hope, the Christian would reply along the lines of this or that reasoned set of premises, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses thereof.
I think you response is one big red herring.
Germany a Christian nation attacked her fellow Christian nations because of national pride and inflecting genocide on its own and other nations citizens.
Is this wrong or not?
It’s irrelevant to the definition of “The Good“. Why? See the very specific reason / premise given above. The respective Christian / Non-Theist moral metrics in play here are not exactly new.
Your dodging.
Germany a Christian nation attacked her fellow Christian nations because of national pride and inflecting genocide on its own and other nations citizens.
Is this wrong? Am I making a generalization?
I see no reason to change my topic of the proverbial key. Do you see a reason? You’re not asking me to change topics, you’re just demanding that I do. How’s that working out for you?
I keep on forgetting, my apologies. You interpret your religion and god based on your image, not the other way around.
I will make a better mental note in the future.
Have a okay day, later.
And a good day to you too ~