Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The unauthorized history of Hitler as a Darwinist

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Richard Weikart kindly writes to say,

I’m happy to announce that my article, “The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought,” has just appeared in German Studies Review (Oct. 2013 issue), one of the most important journals publishing on German history.

Here’s the Abstract:

Historians disagree about whether Nazis embraced Darwinian evolution. By examining Hitler’s ideology, the official biology curriculum, the writings of Nazi anthropologists, and Nazi periodicals, we find that Nazi racial theorists did indeed embrace human and racial evolution. They not only taught that humans had evolved from primates, but they believed the Aryan or Nordic race had evolved to a higher level than other races because of the harsh climatic conditions that influenced natural selection. They also claimed that Darwinism underpinned specific elements of Nazi racial ideology, including racial inequality, the necessity of the racial struggle for existence, and collectivism.

A bit from the Intro:

Many historians recognize that Hitler was a social Darwinist, and some even portray social Darwinism as a central element of Nazi ideology. Why, then, do some historians claim that Nazis did not believe in human evolution? George Mosse argued that human evolution was incompatible with Nazi ideology, because Nazis stressed the immutability of the German race. More recently Peter Bowler and Michael Ruse have argued that the Nazis rejected human evolution, because they upheld a fixed racial type and racial inequality.4 Nowhere is this irony more pronounced than in the work of Daniel Gasman, who claimed that Hitler built his ideology on the social Darwinist ideas of Ernst Haeckel, but simultaneously argued that Nazis rejected human evolution. How is it possible to embrace social Darwinism, while rejecting Darwinism and human evolution? Anne Harrington suggests that the Nazis liked some elements of Darwinism, especially the struggle for existence, but not human evolution. Robert Richards agrees, claiming that Nazi racial ideas “were rarely connected with specific evolutionary conceptions of the transmutation of species,” even though they bandied about the term “struggle for existence.” In another essay Richards went further, arguing that Hitler and the Nazis completely rejected biological evolution. The notion that the Nazis could embrace racial struggle without believing in evolution seems plausible at first, especially since Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a forerunner of Nazi racial ideology, embraced this position. However, the claim that the Nazis did not believe in the transmutation of species and human evolution runs aground once we examine Nazi racial ideology in detail. In this essay I examine the following evidence to demonstrate overwhelmingly that Nazi racial thinkers embraced human and racial evolution:

1) Hitler believed in human evolution.

2) The official Nazi school curriculum prominently featured biological evolution, including human evolution.

3) Nazi racial anthropologists, including SS anthropologists, uniformly endorsed human evolution and integrated evolution into their racial ideology.

4) Nazi periodicals, including those on racial ideology, embraced human evolution.

5) Nazi materials designed to inculcate the Nazi worldview among SS and military men promoted human evolution as an integral part of the Nazi worldview.

This should pretty much end the discussion but won’t because the issue isn’t about the massive evidence that Nazis were social Darwinists but about defending Darwin’s sacred name from the sacrilegious facts.

Note: Weikart explains how he first got involved with this matter here:

Actually, at first, he wasn’t interested. While living in Germany some years ago to improve his German, he was mainly interested in the nineteenth century. He doubted that he would uncover anything new about the Third Reich. For one thing, in his view, it was an overworked field. But then he discovered one neglected point:

[A]s I investigated the history of evolutionary ethics in pre-World War I Germany, I noticed—to my surprise—remarkable similarities between the ideas of those promoting evolutionary ethics and Hitler’s worldview. This discovery (which happened around 1995) led me to investigate Hitler’s worldview more closely, and this research convinced me that I had found something important to say about Hitler’s ideology.

One wonders if Weikart will ever be forgiven for documenting it all so carefully, in the faces of all those who want to explain it away.

Comments
LarTanner, As you agree, Hitler’s Führerprinzip established a pervasive leadership hierarchy with Hitler at the top. This is the opposite of Christianity. As proof, I would quote you the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 20:24 in response to an argument among his disciples as to who was the greatest.
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
This is about as opposite as you can get! That hierarchies were later established in many Christian denominations is typical of human institutions, but contrary to the teachings of the Jesus. And in Matthew 7, Jesus says
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
If you read the Gospel of John in the Complete Jewish Bible, you'll notice that the places where it talks about "the Jews" is translated "the Judeans" (to contrast with the Galileans in the north). Rabbi Stern makes a strong historical argument for this choice of words. Starting with the book of Acts onwards, the word "Jew" (especially when addressing the diaspora) came to mean all Hebrews, not just those from southern Israel. Keep reading. :-) - QQuerius
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
Of course, as a politician, Hitler appealed both to Christianity and to Darwinism. Both held sway among the body politic in the Germany of his day. The question is, did the ideology which he claimed followed logically from the New Testament's and Darwin's writings actually follow logically from those writings? In the case of Darwin's, the answer is yes. In the case of the New Testament's, the answer is no. His convolutions of scripture in the citation @151 qualify it as Exhibit 1, that his ideology did not follow logically from the New Testament's teachings at all.jstanley01
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
F/N 5: Finally for now, Jeremiah at the potter's house: ============== >> Jer 18: 1 The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2 “Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will let you hear my words.” 3 So I went down to the potter's house, and there he was working at his wheel. 4 And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter's hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. 9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. 11 Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the LORD, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’ >> ============== That is in a promise of blessing there is a warning, and in a warning of judgement there is a hope of repentance and relenting or preserving of a remnant. The NT needs to be read in light of this very strongly emphasised dimension of the OT. KFkairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
F/N 4: What about Moses and his prophetic song of warning: ================ >>Deut 31: 24 When Moses had finished writing the words of this law in a book to the very end, 25 Moses commanded the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, 26 “Take this Book of the Law and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against you. 27 For I know how rebellious and stubborn you are. Behold, even today while I am yet alive with you, you have been rebellious against the LORD. How much more after my death! 28 Assemble to me all the elders of your tribes and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears and call heaven and earth to witness against them. 29 For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly and turn aside from the way that I have commanded you. And in the days to come evil will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands.” 30 Then Moses spoke the words of this song until they were finished, in the ears of all the assembly of Israel: . . . . Deut 32:8 ????????When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. 9 ????????But the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. 10 ????????“He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. 11 ????????Like an eagle that stirs up its nest, that flutters over its young, spreading out its wings, catching them, bearing them on its pinions, 12 ????????the LORD alone guided him, no foreign god was with him. 13 ????????He made him ride on the high places of the land, and he ate the produce of the field, and he suckled him with honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock. 14 ????????Curds from the herd, and milk from the flock, with fat of lambs, rams of Bashan and goats, with the very finest of the wheat- and you drank foaming wine made from the blood of the grape. 15 ????????“But Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked; you grew fat, stout, and sleek; then he forsook God who made him and scoffed at the Rock of his salvation. 16 ????????They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger. 17 ????????They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded. 18 ????????You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth. 19 ????????“The LORD saw it and spurned them, because of the provocation of his sons and his daughters. 20 ????????And he said, ‘I will hide my face from them; I will see what their end will be, For they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faithfulness [Note Peter's citation of this text at Pentecost Sunday in Ac 2]. >> ================ Is this Moses speaking negatively of Jews, and being a source of antisemitism? Or, is he not warning against the perversity of mankind, who will often turn away from the truth and right they know or should know to follow evil, and folly, also warning against consequences. KFkairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
F/N 3: Is Jeremiah speaking negatively about Jews, and a source of antise4mitism, here? ============== >>Jer 1: 11 And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Jeremiah, what do you see?” And I said, “I see an almond branch.” 12 Then the LORD said to me, “You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform it.” 13 The word of the LORD came to me a second time, saying, “What do you see?” And I said, “I see a boiling pot, facing away from the north.” 14 Then the LORD said to me, “Out of the north disaster shall be let loose upon all the inhabitants of the land. 15 For behold, I am calling all the tribes of the kingdoms of the north, declares the LORD, and they shall come, and every one shall set his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, against all its walls all around and against all the cities of Judah. 16 And I will declare my judgments against them, for all their evil in forsaking me. They have made offerings to other gods and worshiped the works of their own hands. 17 But you, dress yourself for work; arise, and say to them everything that I command you. Do not be dismayed by them, lest I dismay you before them. 18 And I, behold, I make you this day a fortified city, an iron pillar, and bronze walls, against the whole land, against the kings of Judah, its officials, its priests, and the people of the land. 19 They will fight against you, but they shall not prevail against you, for I am with you, declares the LORD, to deliver you.” >> ============= Sounds like Jeremiah contra mundum to me. KFkairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
F/N 2: And again, now God speaks through the prophet to the sheep: ========== >> Ezek 34: 17 “As for you, my flock, thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I judge between sheep and sheep, between rams and male goats. 18 Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture, that you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pasture; and to drink of clear water, that you must muddy the rest of the water with your feet? 19 And must my sheep eat what you have trodden with your feet, and drink what you have muddied with your feet? 20 “Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD to them: Behold, I, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 Because you push with side and shoulder, and thrust at all the weak with your horns, till you have scattered them abroad, 22 I will rescue my flock; they shall no longer be a prey. And I will judge between sheep and sheep. 23 And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. 24 And I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the LORD; I have spoken. >> ========== Is this a negative view of Jews, and a source of anti-semitism? Or, is it the prophet speaking to the moral hazards of wealth and power unconcerned about and crushing of neighbours, as well as the general hazards of being human, in the context of being a covenant people? KFkairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
F/N: Ezekiel on the Shepherds -- leaders (with a spiritual not just a temporal remit) -- of Israel: =========== >>Ezek 34: 1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord GOD: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? 3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. 4 The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. 5 So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. 6 My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them. 7 “Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 8 As I live, declares the Lord GOD, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, 9 therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the LORD: 10 Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them. >> =========== Is this, a negative view of Jews, and a source of antisemitism? Or, is it simply the same age old challenge that power has in it moral and spiritual hazards above and beyond those of simply being human? In a context of the covenantal nation of Israel. Which the prophet is speaking unwelcome truth to power about. (Never mind he had been warned that many would treat him as someone singing love songs, and pay him but little heed.) KFkairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
PPS: At this point it is also sadly clear that you are unfortunately approaching the NT with a jaundiced eye, in light of how you have mishandled key texts. Until that attitude is fixed, you will be unable to see objectively.kairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
LT: In light of the above, it is sadly clear that you are so determined to invidiously associate Hitler with the Christian church that you are unable to listen to evidence that shows that his behaviour was indisputably antichristian, not only ethically but theologically. (I still shake my head over your unwillingness to acknowledge that the longstanding, long since well known ethical core of the Christian faith is what it is. The very fact that in our civilisation Jesus of Nazareth, in the Sermon on the Mount, is the source most strongly cited for/associated with the Golden Rule [which he explicitly cited as being from the Torah, i.e. as Mosaic . . . ], should give a clue or two on that, and the obvious fact that the NT holds that we are equally created in God's image, should provide a clue, as to just what lies behind the major body of ethical teachings in the NT. The ethical core of the Christian faith is not in doubt -- at least among those genuinely interested in dealing with facts on the merits.) That double anchorage is why the Barmen Declaration was cast in terms of a theological declaration against heresy. That is also why Hitler's declarations from the political stump are patently deceitful and manipulative, as there is an objective standard that has both theological and ethical components, and he dismally fails both. Maybe it has escaped you that ever since Pliny the Elder's investigations by torture and threats c 110 AD as reported to Trajan, it has been well known that genuine Christians have certain theological standards that will not be violated even at the cost of life, and similarly have certain ethical standards. If you don't know that you don't know enough to say anything of substance. If you do know such but wish to play rhetorical games in the teeth of truth you know or should know, you are being deceitful. No ifs, ands or buts about it. So much for your no true scotsman talking points. Hitler was simply not a Christian, whatever twisted "I am not a crook" or "I did not do X with that woman" or " you can keep it" or " Socialism is Christianity in action" rhetoric he may have used to pull wool over eyes. BTW, just on a historical note that shows just how poor was the research done by the sources you seem to favour, the God is with us belt buckles used by German Wehrmacht soldiers in WW II actually came down to them from Prussia in C19. (And would have been dubious even then.) Perhaps, for instance, it did not register with you that Barth [Swiss citizen -- probably saved him], Boenhoffer [a martyr BTW] and Niemoller [a Confessor, BTW who suffered in concentration camps] et al had the better of the matter than Hitler and those he successfully intimidated? Where, Barth may have been the leading protestant theologian in the world at the time and Boenhoffer, the leading German one. Niemoller -- Bishop as I recall -- was simply a former hero U boat captain and a leading pastor. These are three key lights in the Barmen Declaration, which is seen as so significant that it is taken as having creedal force. At this stage it is clear that you are simply looking for and endlessly repeating rhetorical talking points to prop up hostility driven accusations of no substance. Ironically, in a campaign to accuse the NT of being a source of antisemitism, and to blame "Christianity" for materially contributing to Hitler -- obviously meant to distract attention from serious issues and evidence over the role of darwinist ideas in the rise of Nazism -- you have only managed to expose your own visceral anti-Christian bigotry and stubborn closed mindedness in the teeth of cogent correction. KF PS: Those genuinely wishing to understand the spiritual nature of Hitler's Nazism, kindly cf here, noting onward linked discussions, especially the recently published Nuremberg papers linked here for eye-opening reading on his long term plan for the Christian church.kairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
KF: Great posts,a very enlightening read. Hitler in his own words is anything but Christian. Nazism is a political ideology and/or Hitler has nothing to do with Christianity, to argue otherwise is extremely deceptive and mischievous.Chalciss
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
KF, We have Hitler's own words -- public or not -- we have the declarations of Nazi principles (as in the 25 points), and we have the overwhelming support of the Nazi regime by Christian leaders and churches. None of this is to indict Christianity but only to acknowledge the fact that Nazism found Christianity to be compatible or malleable enough to their warped worldview. Your denials and deflections of this fact are as hollow as they are frustrating. And revealing. If I mock it's only to help you see how ridiculous you look in trying to deny the plain historical fact. Notice, too, that I have not once contested the historical fact that the Nazis sought to employ their own version of "Darwinism," which is the subject of the OP. By the way, I have been reading the NT again. I have started with John. In reading it, it seems to me that the explicit references to Jews and Judaism are often (not always) hostile, and plainly so.LarTanner
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
LT: At this point you are also descending into personal abuse. I have taken time to point out objective and longstanding facts and documentation that you cannot confute so you are now trying Alinskyite sarcastic mockery. That speaks volumes about your attitude, motives and behaviour. That is sadly revealing. KFkairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
LT: You have failed to notice that you cited a public speech meant to manipulate and using the propaganda technique Hitler was notorious for, the big and frequently repeated lie, indeed one that contributed to the rise of the heresy that he tried to substitute for genuine Christian faith -- the strongest possible proof that he was not in any reasonable sense a Christian. That is what the Barmen declaration denounced, and rightly so; whatever reservations we may have about participants in it, on this they were right. (If you had cited from his table talk, his second book or the recently published Nuremberg papers on the intentions towards the Church which were already being implemented in some places that would be different.) And yes this was intended to draw all Germany under his absolute rule, making him an antichrist, a counterfeit messiah in the guise of a politician. Further to this, you Fail to acknowledge the core principles of Christian ethics, as usual. This is a case of stubborn insistence on corrected error, evidently motivated by deep seated hostility that is here resistant to plain and well documented truth. All you are managing to do is to further expose yourself as irrational on this subject, motivated by and to hostility that leads you to do things that were they done to you in turn you would cry to the highest heavens. KF PS: More later DV, when the effects of an antihistamine clear.kairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Querius (145)
The whole point of Hitler’s Führerprinzip was to incorporate ALL aspects of German society under a leadership hierarchy with Hitler at the top.
Sure, that's pretty much what I have claimed all along. Nazi ideology and policy was build from many available materials. They used a self-serving form of Christianity and a self-serving form of Social Darwinism. We agree, but folks like KF and StephenB don't seem to be able to handle this and want us to proclaim that Hitler was No True Scotsman. Unfortunately, at the time Hitler thought he was a True Scotsman and very many other True Scotsman openly supported the Reich. Maybe they all failed to live up to the ideals of KF's True Christianity. Maybe everyone except Lord Jesus fails. OK, but then maybe Lord Jesus could have been a shade more clear about what True Christianity was so that we wouldn't have had to wait/waste all this time for Prophet KF to enlighten the world. These are the mysteries of the faith.LarTanner
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
That's from a speech delivered at Munich, 12 April 1922. See Norman H. Baynes, ed. (1942). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 19.LarTanner
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
KF (150): I am glad you want to bring in Hitler's own words. Let's read what the man himself said:
My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only 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 against the Jewish poison. Today, 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. [Emphasis added]
LarTanner
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
F/N: Recall, 49 above: ======== >>>> 49 kairosfocus November 2, 2013 at 12:20 am Q: Pardon, but we must let the beast speak, from his own mouth, Mein Kampf, Bk 1 Ch 1[0]:
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. [--> Echoes a chilling remark in Darwin's Descent of Man, ch. 6 cited at comment no 6 by BA: "At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."] Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life [ --> an allusion to Evolution as a law of nature, and an indication of his own neopagan inclinations -- "Nature" here plainly acts as H's god whose will is to be served] . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. [--> the racialist premise against mixing races, never mind the issue of hybrid vigour] Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings [--> note how racist and evolutionary thought are unified] would be unthinkable. The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. [ --> an intended measure of the "fitness" of those best fitted to survive and propagate] But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice [--> the basis for a social darwinist predatory view of relationships between races of humankind] . . . . In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb [--> i.e. natural selection as he understood it] , while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [--> That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. [--> Notice the central concept of struggle, as in struggle for existence leading to the survival of the fittest] If the process were different, all further and higher development [--> evolution, again] would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best, if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating [--> note the focus on differential reprosuctive success], the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. [--> NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English in chs 5 - 7 of his second major work on Evolution, Descent of Man, 1871; H seems to be summarising a standard answer to the puzzle CRD posed] Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health [--> Note Nature as active, god-like agent] . . .
It is no accident that these ideas from 1925 shaped the policies of Nazi Germany from 1933 – 45. This was not just window dressing, it is the very shaping frame of thought in summary. And as we read them, again and again, they draw on Darwin as his ideas were embedded in German culture. >>>> ========= The clip of course is from the passage published as a pamphlet. It clearly lays out a darwinist, natural and sexual selection ideology, imbued with social darwinism. In it too are echoes of a sort of nature worship that seems to have been Hitler's real religion. If there is a sustained failure to come to serious grips with this by any who try to project blame to the Christian faith, it is clear that they are not seeking truth but toxic diversion of attention. KFkairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
PPS: Particularly note how the Gospel of John is used to characterise the heretical leaders usurping the Church from gospel-anchored faith as robbers not true shepherds (with echoes from the prophets being well known). Barth, whatever one may say about his neo-orthodoxy, is a world class, famous exegete and author inter alia of a major systematic theology of was it 6,000 pp.kairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
PPS: Coel's Blog -- obviously a New Atheism site [i.e. a movement that lacks balance and depth] is not credible. What has been done is to snip out of context and balance to ptop up a pre-chosen position. Let's go back to what Weikart pointed out from that pivotal passage in MK, which was published as a pamphlet, again, and ask, is there a willingness to face facts? Answer, no. Instead, side tracks and distractions. For instance the posing of a flag with a cross and a swastika in the middle says only one thing to someone like me the so-called German Christians were in idolatrous heresy [a particularly blatant and bas species of political messianism], exactly what the Barmen Declaration of 1934 denounced:
8.01 The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church met in Barmen, May 29-31, 1934. Here representatives from all the German Confessional Churches met with one accord in a confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, apostolic Church. In fidelity to their Confession of Faith, members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches sought a common message for the need and temptation of the Church in our day. With gratitude to God they are convinced that they have been given a common word to utter. It was not their intention to found a new Church or to form a union. For nothing was farther from their minds than the abolition of the confessional status of our Churches. Their intention was, rather, to withstand in faith and unanimity the destruction of the Confession of Faith, and thus of the Evangelical Church in Germany. In opposition to attempts to establish the unity of the German Evangelical Church by means of false doctrine, by the use of force and insincere practices, the Confessional Synod insists that the unity of the Evangelical Churches in Germany can come only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit. Thus alone is the Church renewed . . . . 8.07 We publicly declare before all evangelical Churches in Germany that what they hold in common in this Confession is grievously imperiled, and with it the unity of the German Evangelical Church. It is threatened by the teaching methods and actions of the ruling Church party of the "German Christians" and of the Church administration carried on by them. These have become more and more apparent during the first year of the existence of the German Evangelical Church. This threat consists in the fact that the theological basis, in which the German Evangelical Church is united, has been continually and systematically thwarted and rendered ineffective by alien principles, on the part of the leaders and spokesmen of the "German Christians" as well as on the part of the Church administration. When these principles are held to be valid, then, according to all the Confessions in force among us, the Church ceases to be the Church and the German Evangelical Church, as a federation of Confessional Churches, becomes intrinsically impossible . . . . 8.09 In view of the errors of the "German Christians" of the present Reich Church government which are devastating the Church and also therefore breaking up the unity of the German Evangelical Church, we confess the following evangelical truths: 8.10 - 1. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (John 14.6). "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. . . . I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved." (John 10:1, 9.) 8.11 Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death. 8.12 We reiect the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God's revelation. 8.13 - 2. "Christ Jesus, whom God has made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption." (1 Cor. 1:30.) 8.14 As Jesus Christ is God's assurance of the forgiveness of all our sins, so, in the same way and with the same seriousness he is also God's mighty claim upon our whole life. Through him befalls us a joyful deliverance from the godless fetters of this world for a free, grateful service to his creatures. 8.15 We reiect the false doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords--areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through him. 8.16 - 3. "Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body [is] joined and knit together." (Eph. 4:15,16.) [Barth et al]
And, a plain intent to smear "Creationiosts" as would be totalitarian nazis. If LT is so hyp[er sensitive to any criticisms of some leaders of Jews from 2000 years ago, cannot he be at least concerned to get a reasonable balance about Christians, creationists and the like today? KFkairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
PS: One issue I think needs a specific remark, attitude to Jews and to Judaism. In my case -- and that of a lot of others, I am quite sure, there is respect, and recognition in light of the olive branch principle. There may be disagreements of various kinds, but that does not remove respect. And, when it comes to the sins of power elites and factions, I see the very like patterns to the concerns of OT and NT alike, in businesses, communities, institutions, countries and international relations. This reflects the moral hazard of being human, and the additional hazards of power. The key issue is repentance and reformation, not race -- or for that matter, age or sex.kairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
LT: Pardon, but you now force me to be pretty direct. Are you so blind to yourself, and what you have tried -- and failed -- to do? As in, from the very first comment designed to poison the well? Do you not see how revealing the kind of hostility you put on display
(e.g. refusing to acknowledge that the core ethical teachings of the NT are exactly what they have long been generally known to be, e.g. 2 converting clashes between Jews -- on both sides -- over abusive behaviour of elites into some imagined SOURCE of racial hate of Jews, e.g 3, failing to appreciate what Messiah and Lion of the Tribe of JUDAH mean as applied to Jesus David's-son imply)
. . . is? Yes, certain Jews and certain gentiles come in for some very negative portrayals in the NT. Simon Peter, a loudmouth, impulsive, coward at times. Paul, a self-confessed murderously persecuting chief of simmers and trophy of grace. Several unjust Idumean, Jewish, and Roman rulers. Judges of the proud Roman Colony, Philippi, willing to whip men who have not been properly tried then toss them in the stocks and try to throw them out of town quietly the next day. A thinly veiled portrait of the Emperor Nero as an irresponsible, vicious pervert, typical of the ruling classes (as in, Read Rom 1 with historically informed eyes). And more. For that matter, read Josephus; not only on the Herods but incidents like the seizing of opportunity of a gap in governorship in AD 62 to put James the Just -- both leader of the church in Jerusalem and a very zealous, evidently respected Jew [who happens to have been Jesus' brother] -- to death in ways that are simply dubious. Let's see:
Antiquities 20. 9.1 199-203 The younger Ananus, who had been appointed to the high priesthood, was rash in his temper and unusually daring. He followed the school of the Sadducees, who are indeed more heartless than any of the other Jews, as I have already explained, when they sit in judgment. Possessed of such a character, Ananus thought that he had a favorable opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinas was still on the way. And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, and accusing them of having transgressed the law delivered them up to be stoned. Those of the inhabits of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and who were strict in observance of the law were offended at this. They therefore secretly sent to King Agrippa urging him, for Ananus had not even been correct in his first step, to order him to desist from any further such actions. Certain of them even went to meet Albinus, who was on his way from Alexandria, and informed him that Ananus had no authority to convene the Sanhedrin without his consent. Convinced by these words, Albinus angrily wrote to Ananus threatening to take vengeance upon him. King Agrippa, because of Ananus' action, deposed him from the high priesthood which he had held for three months and replaced him with Jesus the son of Damnaeus. (Louis Feldman translation)
Is Josephus anti-semitic? Or, on your slip-slide version 2.0 with code words and dog whistles: making negative portrayals of Jews serving as a presumably intentional root source of anti-semitism? Or, does this not instead echo the same pattern of ruthlessly abusive elites and people who beg to differ that we see repeatedly in the NT? Or, for that matter, doesn't this echo the NT pattern where consistently the ultimately more dangerous party is the Sadducees? (As in, c. 57, Paul of Tarsus appeals to his FELLOW Pharisees [as son of a Pharisee brought up as a student under Gamaliel] for support against the Sadducees in the Ruling Council! And gets it.) Wake up and smell the coffee, the key lesson here is not general hatred of Jews or stereotyping of Jews, but that power tends to corrupt over and above the basic moral hazard of being human. So, it is not wise to naively trust in princes, their promises, carefully cultivated charismatic aura and dealings. Power without effective accountability leads to corruption spreading like a disease. By and large, the powerful will not bear close moral scrutiny -- even moreso than us ordinary folks. And yes I am rephrasing Acton in ways that allow us to get at what he was observing as a great historian. And, a prophetic critique that speaks truth to power is going to be less than flattering. Yes, men motivated by hostility have wrenched the NT in service to that hostility (e.g. Herr Schicklegruber's failure to consider what Jesus would have done with a whip in his own office). But that is the point: to do so, they have wrenched, ignoring the core ethical teachings that start from our equality under God. And since you wish to accuse John, let's hear him on the subject of ethics and its relevance to discipleship and responsiveness to the gospel:
Jn 3: 16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.” Jn 8:3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought [to Jesus while teaching in the Temple] a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
Let's see, the principle is God's love and gift leading to the challenge and our response: do we turn in penitence to the light or scurry off into the darkness we prefer for fear of exposure of our evil? And, we see such in a well known case in point, a woman caught in the act of adultery -- where was the MAN? -- and dragged to Jesus. Used as simply a prop to a poisonous dilemma: yes stone her, and you are a rebel against Rome worthy of death. No, and you are in rebellion against Moses, an exposed blasphemer to be lynched. (Where of course, their own compromises as a colonised state were conveniently not on the table.) Yes --> dead. No --> equally dead. Literally. The ultimate gotcha. And yes, here we find the exact groups from Mk 3:6 who Peter reports through John Mark, as plotting Jesus' death. And, manifest in the institutional centre of the religion of Judaism (which he probably had already cleansed once and was going to cleanse a second time at the start of passion week). Ruthless power elites weaving traps with clever words. Something that is abundantly familiar across the world and down the long march of history down to today. Notice Jesus' answer, going through the middle by exposing hypocrisy. (He probably first scribbled the text of the law, that BOTH involved were liable, and a question, where is the other? Second time, probably a pointed sin list; written, so it could be read, but not announced to incite the crowd.) Then, he rises a third time and asks, where are your accusers? Gone. His response is then that of love for an obviously penitent sinner: you are forgiven, walk in a new life. To twist something like this into an accused source of antisemitism is blatant scripture-twisting driven by obvious and unjustified hostility. Which should stop. Forthwith. More from the pen of John:
1 Jn 1: 5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 Jn 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. 8 Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. 17 But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.
It is time to flush away hostility and scripture-twisting driven by hostility, then think again. KFkairosfocus
November 12, 2013
November
11
Nov
12
12
2013
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
LarTanner suggested:
Querius (141) – The Lauren Bout slideshow shows exactly what I have said: Nazism incorporated cultural and religious Christianity into their program.
No disagreement then. The whole point of Hitler's Führerprinzip was to incorporate ALL aspects of German society under a leadership hierarchy with Hitler at the top. Hitler indicated to his cronies that he could not oppose the German Christian churches directly (yet), instead, he chose to syncretize his program with a nationalized church, and pandered to cultural Christians. If you read any of the sermons published by the nationalized church, you will see the unrelenting glorification of Adolph Hitler as a common theme. Did you read sections from the book reference that I provided? It's well researched, thorough, and accurate.
As for the second cite: Nazi persecutions targeted many people and institutions they considered undesirable. I have never indicated otherwise. Now, here is a link for you to check out: http://coelsblog.wordpress.com.....darwinism/. Let me know what you think.
Yes, I checked it out. Frankly I found Coel Hellier's interpretation at odds with most historians, also my own discussions with people who were there (they're dying off now). I find Coel Hellier's referencing Ann Coulter bizarre. Do take the time to contrast your source of information with a more scholarly, mainstream one. - QQuerius
November 11, 2013
November
11
Nov
11
11
2013
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
Lar Tanner:
What is it, then? It is a source of antisemitism. It is a passage that allows a reading of the Jews (represented by the Pharisees) plotting to destroy God incarnate.
The passage speaks for itself. The Pharisees did, indeed, plot to kill Christ in concert with the Sadducees and Chief Priests. It is not anti-semitic to report facts. By the way, are you ever going to tell us who you think this allegedly anti-semitic "source" was? In keeping with that question, you have changed your story several times: First, you said the the Gospels contain multiple examples of "anti-Jewish" passages. Then you said that the sources for these writings come from someone other than the authors, but you will not tell us who that someone is. Then you said that the Gospel writers were not anti-Semitic after all (after saying that they were anti-Jewish [which is the same thing]) but, nevertheless, were using "rhetorical weapons," indicating that they were doing more than simply reporting events and that they were purposely trying to incite undue anti-Jewish sentiment. Now, you have changed your story again and suggest that the Jewish interpretation of the New Testament will illuminate the points of our discussion. But nothing you have presented will change the basic facts. It was not the responsibility of the Gospel writers to play down examples of malicious Pharisaic behavior or to eliminate it from the record in order to make sure that future zealots may not take it the wrong way? That some did is unfortunate, but that responsibility is rightly assigned to the zealots themselves.
Nevertheless, to say that the NT disparages Jews, often in symbolic use of the Pharisees, is not to say it is antisemitic.
Symbolic? Is that supposed to mean anti-historical? These are reports of historical events. The Jewish leaders (indeed, the vast majority of Jews) were given a choice to choose Christ or Barabbas. They chose Barabbas.
The writers setting down the gospel stories are wielding their rhetorical weapons. The sidebar quote I gave in comment 140 also tells something of the rhetorical strategy of the gospels:
Gospel stories? You mean you think they were making things up? Rhetorical weapons? You mean they were using incendiary language? Where do you get such nonsense? Each of the Gospel writers was speaking to a specific audience and designed individual presentations accordingly, but each approach was based on historical facts. You are trying to con people who are much more familiar with the Scriptures than you are.
note here and in a number of passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Pharisees are contrasted specifically with tax collectors. This aspect is crucial for understanding the Gospels’ view of both Pharisees and tax collectors: they are both presented as symbolic as well as real. As a lay movement outside of the Temple administration, the goal of the Pharisees was to renew and extend the observance of Jewish practice in society. But while Mark and Matthew could allow for the existence of good scribes (Mk 12.28-34; Mt 13.52), they do not recognize the possibility of a good Pharisee (contrast Acts 15.5).
Oh, please stop it. Everyone knows that Nicodemus was a good Pharisee and the great Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin. We receive that information from none other than the Gospels.
The conflict between the Jesus of the Gospels and the Pharisees, as representatives of Judaism in daily life, has therefore set up an opposition that has been perpetuated in Christian attitudes toward Judaism to this day.
That opposition was real and it persists to this day. Ninety percent of Jews are secularist and reject Christ. They prefer the Talmud over the Torah or interpret the latter in terms of he former. It has been that way ever since they were asked to choose between Christ and Barabbas.
So, again, I am not claiming the NT is antisemitic. Negative in attitude to Jews (especially in John), yes; antisemitic, no.
That is a silly statement. To have a "negative attitude" toward Jews is to be anti-semitic.StephenB
November 11, 2013
November
11
Nov
11
11
2013
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Querius (141) - The Lauren Bout slideshow shows exactly what I have said: Nazism incorporated cultural and religious Christianity into their program. As for the second cite: Nazi persecutions targeted many people and institutions they considered undesirable. I have never indicated otherwise. Now, here is a link for you to check out: http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/nazi-racial-ideology-was-religious-creationist-and-opposed-to-darwinism/. Let me know what you think. StephenB (142) - It would help you to read comment 126. Nevertheless, to say that the NT disparages Jews, often in symbolic use of the Pharisees, is not to say it is antisemitic. The writers setting down the gospel stories are wielding their rhetorical weapons. The sidebar quote I gave in comment 140 also tells something of the rhetorical strategy of the gospels:
note here and in a number of passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Pharisees are contrasted specifically with tax collectors. This aspect is crucial for understanding the Gospels’ view of both Pharisees and tax collectors: they are both presented as symbolic as well as real. As a lay movement outside of the Temple administration, the goal of the Pharisees was to renew and extend the observance of Jewish practice in society. But while Mark and Matthew could allow for the existence of good scribes (Mk 12.28-34; Mt 13.52), they do not recognize the possibility of a good Pharisee (contrast Acts 15.5). The conflict between the Jesus of the Gospels and the Pharisees, as representatives of Judaism in daily life, has therefore set up an opposition that has been perpetuated in Christian attitudes toward Judaism to this day.
The above is from page 64 of The Jewish Annotated New Testament (2011), edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler. So, again, I am not claiming the NT is antisemitic. Negative in attitude to Jews (especially in John), yes; antisemitic, no. I trust this closes the matter, unless you and KF have some violent hatred of dead horses and you must keep beating together.LarTanner
November 11, 2013
November
11
Nov
11
11
2013
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
Lar Tanner @64
The Gospel According to Mark contains about 40 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish rhetoric, as follows: The Gospel According to Matthew contains about 80 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish rhetoric: The Gospel According to John contains about 130 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish rhetoric: The Acts of the Apostles has approximately 140 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish rhetoric:
Lar Tanner #120
I still am not claiming that the NT is antisemitic;
Unbelievable.StephenB
November 10, 2013
November
11
Nov
10
10
2013
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
LarTanner complained sceptically:
Sez you, and with no documentation and support. Telling. You apparently have intimate knowledge of the Nazi mindset and what their interests “really” were. You tell us that the Nazis were not True Christian Scotsmen. Yet, they called themselves Christian and seemed to admire the person on the gospels. They had an issue with Paul, as a matter of fact.
Yes, it's as you say, I have a pretty good knowledge of the subject. Having read many books touching on the subject, and having had conversations with people who lived through the nightmare, I'm confident that my previous statements are accurate. For your benefit, here are a couple of easily verifiable references: http://prezi.com/l925nni351uc/religion-and-nazism/ "The Nazi government also attempted to supplant Christian worship with secular Nazi party celebrations which adopted many symbols of religious ritual but instead glorified the party and the Führer" Form- Historical Article The Nazi Persecution of the Churches (c)1968 John S. Conway http://books.google.com/books?id=RyiCgoA-IYwC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=church+nazi+fuhrerprinzip&source=bl&ots=xTOPTIdlsm&sig=vOOPhDEVCGOWIss2Kdvy5CydPcM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sVSAUvaIKuWiigLLkoHQBw&sqi=2&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=church%20nazi%20fuhrerprinzip&f=false You can read portions or all of the above book online---you'll find that the descriptions are completely compatible with mine. Go ahead and read some passages. Now, a person honestly interested in the truth of the matter rather arguing for its own sake would happily submit a sincere expression of gratitude for the enlightenment provided. Are you such a person? :-) -QQuerius
November 10, 2013
November
11
Nov
10
10
2013
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
KF, you are full of it. You say in 128
there can be no question but that you intend to indict the NT as anti-semitic [hostile to Jews as a race] and in so accusing you used a specific and loaded term, DEFAMATORY.
Yet I have clarified that my intent was different, and I have made the same clarification a few times now. I have proposed alternate language. You keep beating dead horses, and I wonder why: methinks thou dost protest too much, eh? How about we hear about the Pharisees from a working scholar who understands the key texts and contexts much better than you do. The following is from a sidebar essay at Mark 2 in The Jewish Annotated New Testament (2011), edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, page 64:
note here and in a number of passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the Pharisees are contrasted specifically with tax collectors. This aspect is crucial for understanding the Gospels' view of both Pharisees and tax collectors: they are both presented as symbolic as well as real. As a lay movement outside of the Temple administration, the goal of the Pharisees was to renew and extend the observance of Jewish practice in society. But while Mark and Matthew could allow for the existence of good scribes (Mk 12.28-34; Mt 13.52), they do not recognize the possibility of a good Pharisee (contrast Acts 15.5). The conflict between the Jesus of the Gospels and the Pharisees, as representatives of Judaism in daily life, has therefore set up an opposition that has been perpetuated in Christian attitudes toward Judaism to this day. [Emphasis added]
This clearly vindicates my points as reasonable enough for consideration by serious people. I still am not claiming that the NT is antisemitic; neither are the editors of the fine volume I have cited. The record speaks, KF, and not to your credit. Moving to Querius in 128:
The Nazis were only interested in the Christian church as a political unit that must act in concert with the NDSAP. The teachings of Jesus are diametrically opposed to Nazi ideology at every level!
Sez you, and with no documentation and support. Telling. You apparently have intimate knowledge of the Nazi mindset and what their interests "really" were. You tell us that the Nazis were not True Christian Scotsmen. Yet, they called themselves Christian and seemed to admire the person on the gospels. They had an issue with Paul, as a matter of fact. Barb in 129:
When Jesus was on earth, Judaism was divided into factions, all competing for influence over the people. That is the picture presented in the Gospel accounts as well as in the writings of first-century Jewish historian Josephus.
Perhaps, but Josephus himself ain't all that reliable. He's often quite the liar and anything he says ought to be considered suspect or skewed. There are additional sources of information and perspective about the Pharisees, Sadduccees and Essenes. The Pharisees are a proto-rabbinic movement. They are more what I'd call blue collar compared to the Sadducees, who are associated with the high priesthood. You also say:
In other words, Pharisees and Sadducees were independent groups that broke away from traditional Judaism.
Be careful here. The Pharisees, as you can see earlier in this comment, are a lay sect, apart from Temple administration. I'm sure you do not mean to imply that Pharisaic Judaism is an illegitimate form for Judaism, do you? Then KF comes back in 130. Sorry, but I see nothing worth responding to until you give this howler:
LT, do you understand the way you have come across over the life of this thread?
Ask me if I care. The truth is, I have patiently tried to educate you and your comrades and correct your misreadings. I have been patient with you and endured your tireless whines. KF, if you are so concerned about image and reputation, you might give better care to reading what people actually say before attempting to jump on whatever imaginary persecution they level against you. 131: Meh. Mung at 132: Sorry, you are a junior varsity bench-warmer here. You know neither what you are saying nor what you are talking about. All you can do is be hateful and vile. You have my pity, sir. You all continue to expose yourselves. Live with that.LarTanner
November 10, 2013
November
11
Nov
10
10
2013
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
I must be tired, ARE. Subjects and verbs this morning. Pardon.kairosfocus
November 10, 2013
November
11
Nov
10
10
2013
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT
F/N: Unfortunately, right from comment 1, there has been a sustained well-poisoning attempt. I think there is in this case sufficient of a lack of familiarity that some attention needs to be given to substantial correctives. It is also quite clear above from evidence given, that the lines of influence from Darwin's thought to Hitler's agendas is quite adequately documented. KFkairosfocus
November 10, 2013
November
11
Nov
10
10
2013
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT
Mung: Pardon me but there is such a concept as foreshortening in which the debate becomes one of Messiah ben Joseph and ben David as two individuals with separate fates. The first, on some accounts, falling in battle in defense of Israel. (I have already linked a discussion that touches on these themes.) By contrast, in light of the Passion, this was resynthesised in the Christian understanding (driven by especially Isa 53 and Zechariah) as one who is suffering servant and wounded healer who having ascended from Mt Olivet will return at eschatological crisis of ultimate fulfillment to the same point. I think you may need to revisit your thought. And on Israel, given trends the issue is a land of certain refuge, vs increasing hostility. I have already spoken of the situation in the 1930's - 40's of Jewish refugees with nowhere willing to take them, with exceptions like the Dominican Republic. Which materially contributed to the holocaust. I note that support for Israel is not at all equal to driving Jews out to Israel. I suggest to you that many people who support Israel also support Jews of the diaspora, and if they are Christians and Zionists, for much the same reason. Including, that if one fears widespread hostility and driving out (or worse), it makes sense to support a very strong centre of refuge that cannot be taken away at the whim of some new politician manipulating the electoral game and having support of the media spin meisters. In the context of the eschatological text you have brought up, it has already been points out that this looks like the end game of a global driving out, stopped in its course by decisive intervention. Whether the numbers are literal or symbolically echo things said regarding the Assyrian and Babylonian exile, I cannot determine for sure. But you better believe that the implication is that global hostility leads to attacking the last refuge in defiance of God, only to find out the hard way that God is perfectly willing to break through the ordinary course of the world at the eschaton. So, I think your suggestion that support for Israel by pre-millennialists as an expression of lack of concern for Jews, is off base. I think, it needs to be revisited. Now, normally, I would not discuss theology at UD, but this seems to be so toxic and loaded that some balancing is needed. The proper focus for this thread is the history of ideas influences acting through Darwinism as manifest in Herr Schicklegruber. KFkairosfocus
November 10, 2013
November
11
Nov
10
10
2013
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 7

Leave a Reply