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
Barb@129 - Nicely summarized, and I agree with your characterization of the gulf between the ordinary Jewish people of the time and the Pharisees and Sadducees. Mung@89,
How so? There’s a racial test for “Jewishness”?
I believe AH employed some so-called "experts" at that time in detecting racial impurity. There were even points awarded for Aryan physical characteristics. All a bunch of baloney. There are genetic markers associated with people of Jewish descent (not race), most famously the YAP- marker on the Y-chromosome of nearly all Kohanim (Cohens, priests). See http://www.cohen-levi.org/jewish_genes_and_genealogy/the_dna_chain_of_tradition.htmQuerius
November 9, 2013
November
11
Nov
9
09
2013
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT
Zechariah 13:8
And it shall come to pass in all the land,” Says the Lord, “That two-thirds in it shall be cut off and die,
Past or future? Or past and future? Or past and future and future? If future, who on earth can encourage the return of 'the Jews' to 'the Land' and escape the charge of anti-Semitism? Who could possibly, in good conscience, encourage 'Jews' to return to a situation in which two-thirds of them will be slaughtered, even if it's "Bible Prophecy"?Mung
November 9, 2013
November
11
Nov
9
09
2013
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Pardon, but I think you should take a look here on, with an eye to the principles of prophetic foreshortening, multiple [including partial] fulfillment due to the “history repeats or echoes itself” effect, veiling and ultimate completion of history.
IOW, you're asking me to believe that Jesus was just a precursor to yet another future prophetic fulfillment, ad infinitum. I reject that, for what I trust are obvious reasons.Mung
November 9, 2013
November
11
Nov
9
09
2013
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
Does Hitler fail to qualify as an anti-semite according to LarTanner? Will LarTanner provide a comparison of Hitler's statements about Semites to statements about Semites in the New Testament? Will LarTanner provide a comparison of Hitler's statements about Semites to statements about Semites in the Old Testament? Color me skeptical.Mung
November 9, 2013
November
11
Nov
9
09
2013
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
LarTanner, Either you're a liar, or your source is lying, or both. What steps did you personally take to ensure that you were not simply repeating lies? Or do you even care? Interesting how this thread has been allowed to turn from a charge against Hitler to a charge against Christianity.Mung
November 9, 2013
November
11
Nov
9
09
2013
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
F/N 2: Where it comes to "impeaching" the Darwinian and/or Neo-Darwinian theories of macro-evolution that has to account for body plans, it is more than enough to point out that there is simply no observational warrant that such or similar mechanisms can account for the required functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information. There is but one empirically -- and abundantly -- warranted source for FSCO/I, design. Where also the analysis of the config space challenge for blind chance and mechanical necessity shows that the gamut of atomic and temporal resources held to be available are simply not materially different from zero relative to what would be needed; whether we speak of our solar system or our observed cosmos -- the only observed cosmos. Until such an empirical basis is forthcoming, what we have is a theory able to account for some micro-level adaptations grossly and inappropriately extrapolated beyond the plausible limits for blind mechanisms to hit upon FSCO/I, i.e. 500 - 1,000 bits. So, there is no adequate empirical basis for the Darwinist account of the tree of life. The issue of Darwinist influences on Nazism runs down a separate line: history of ideas, and in this case the history of a moral hazard present in Darwinism from the 1870's on that was seen as backed up by science and ended up as being a component of great evils, plural. (We must not forget eugenics and other evils.) Nor is identifying such a new thing, this exact concern was shouted from the house tops by H G Wells from the 1890's in War of the Worlds and Time Machine. One wishes that his warning had been heeded. KFkairosfocus
November 9, 2013
November
11
Nov
9
09
2013
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
F/N: Time for some notes on selective but important points from LT's latest remarks at 126 above: _____________ >>I frown upon preaching “atheism in the name of philosophy” just the same as preaching Christianity in the name of science. I assume you feel just the same.>> 1 --> Inappropriate attempted tu quoque >> Mark 3:6 is not a case – blatant or otherwise – of antisemitism. It-is-not-a-case-of-antisemitism. 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. It casts the Jews in the roles that become stereotypical: schemers, hypocrites, legalists, elitist, power-hungry, blind.>> 2 --> The passage in question is not a SOURCE of antisemitism, it is a source on a known historical situation and shows conflicts among factions of Jews, with a clear indication that he abusive elites were not popular. 3 --> It seems that LT needs here to look in a mirror on the subject of projecting broad-brush inappropriate stereotypes and strawmen. >>So, my claim is that it, like all the other in the list I made available, is a source. The passage also presents a defamatory and rhetorical depiction of Jews in the figure of the Pharisees, in my opinion, but it is relatively tame compared to other passages inside the NT and outside.>> 3 --> Your accusation does not make it so, especially in a context that clearly identifies distinct groups and has ALL characters in play as Jews dealing with a fairly common problem of abusive elites. >>Nevertheless, you are right that “defame” is a strong word. Since neither of us can be certain of what, if anything, might have transpired between a real Jesus-figure and the local leaders, maybe we should just use the word “negative” to describe how Jews are portrayed in the NT. Is that acceptable to you?>> 4 --> When one has falsely accused as you did there is need to acknowledge wrong and turn from it. 5 --> The text and the wider Gospel in no wise portray any global abstract entity "Jews" as wholly evil or negative in accord with stereotypes. Instead it shows individuals and groups warts and all, in a realistic and credibly accurate historical situation. >> if you just read what you quote of me you can plainly see that I do not name Hitler but rather am following from Weikart to discuss “Nazi ideology.”>> 7 --> You full well know that you have been asked not to use my personal name in web discussions for reasons of security and harassment. Kindly refrain in future. 8 --> Hitler of course was the chief ideologue of Nazism, and to speak of one or the other is more or less equivalent, in terms of ideology. >> Yes, Christianity is part of Nazi ideology — this is exactly what I am saying.>> 9 --> This, as has been shown to you repeatedly above, is a falsehood, one maintained now in the teeth of more than adequate correction, and one revealing of an underlying hostility to the Christian faith verging on hatred. >>Not Hitler and not Hitler’s conduct. You must be better than this, so maybe you are the one trying “diversionary” tactics.>> 10 --> A silly turnabout and false accusation based on distinctions without a material difference. >>And again, I am in no way blaming Christianity or the NT for the Nazis and for Adolph Hitler.>> 11 --> Directly false given your remarks in and from 1 above. We were not born yesterday. >>I am in no way saying that the Nazis or Adolph Hitler were acting in a way that is consistent with what you present as Christianity’s core teachings. I cannot be any clearer than this.>> 12 --> Any reasonable and informed person would know and acknowledge that it is not a matter of what this particular individual portrays as Christianity's core ethical teachings, but that which is easily and firmly ascertained to be so, from foundational documents that credibly trace to Jesus and the apostles. 13 --> Just to note:
a: the Sermon on the Mount clearly presents the frame of ethics as hanging from the principle of neighbour love. b: Jesus, in answer to a question on the greatest commandment, presents the two principles of love to God and man as neighbour as foundational to ethics, also c: teaching (In response to "who is my neighbour") that neighbourliness goes across religious and ethnic lines by the parable of the Good Samaritan. d: His teachings also are characteristically creational, e.g. in Mt 19, he starts form creation order to discuss divorce. e: Paul, in Acts 17, is presenting the Christian core case to the leading lights of Athens, and in so doing starts form the altar tot he unknown god, then proceeds to proclaim the true God they are blindly groping for, on the principles of God as Creator and sustainer, who has made us of one man [Adam, by implication] and in that context sets the call to penitence and abandonment of the blindness of pagan idolatry and the like. This entails the fundamental equality that is the context for neighbourliness and neighbour-love. f: Romans, also from Paul, is the most theologically reflective work in the NT, and in Rom 13:8 - 10, Paul actually gives a sumary of the Neighbour-love principle informed by Jesus' emphasis on this as summary and principle behind specific commands of the decalogue, and as well highlights the more philosophical point that love does not harm. g: Just to show how this has been used in historically pivotal contexts, let me cite how Locke in his 2nd essay on civil govt, quotes Hooker from Ecclesiastical Polity, in a context that grounds the ethics of liberty and justice in community towards what would become modern liberty and democratic self-government:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]
14 --> Thus it is entirely legitimate to note that when Paul underscores that the law forbids murder and theft, that cuts directly across Nazi aggression and tyranny. >>Can we also recognize that Jews were not legitimate human beings to the Nazis, and therefore not able by definition to be murdered? >> 15 --> The Nazis may well have tried to dehumanise those they wished to murder, as I pointed out above in speaking of cats vs mice and fox vs geese from Hitler. This traces to Darwinist not Christian, Scriptural views, which would immediately recognise that Jews, Nordics, Japanese, Chinese, Blacks and the like are all obviously members of the human family descended form our common ancestor. >>Christianity’s core ethical teachings are like many other ethical teachings from other traditions. The problem is often not the teachings themselves, but who they apply to and when.>> 16 --> So, we should be willing to understand cases of willful disobedience, whether in elites of the OT era who schemed against Jeremiah and put him in a broken muddy cistern to rot, or those who schemed against Jesus even on the Sabbath day, or those who schemed to mislead the German people into aggressive war, mass murder and worse. >>Finally, Weikart’s argument seems to be well-grounded concerning what the Nazis believed in the arena of evolutionary ideas. Is that what you want to discuss, what the Nazis believed?>> 17 --> this happens to be the focal matter of the thread. And it is corrective to many who have tried to argue that what Weikart has documented is wrong. >>Is what the Nazis believed supposed to impeach what Darwin had written about in 1859?>> 18 --> If anything it is more relevant to what Darwin wrote c 1871 in Descent of Man, especially chs 5 - 7, and as this then flowed on to shape science and thought in subsequent decades. There is a clear moral hazard in those chapters, as has been pointed out, one that needed to be taken far more seriously. >>If so, I think that’s unfair and incorrect to do.>> 19 --> Strawman caricature, set up, preached against, knocked over. >> It reminds me of humanities types, like myself, who use Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle as if it means we cannot really know about the world. >> 20 --> More of the same, in this case carrying an ad hominem circumstantial pivoting on my home discipline, Physics. ____________ LT, do you understand the way you have come across over the life of this thread? Were I you, I would take a time out and seriously rethink the obvious hostility and distortion, twisted about and projected though strawman stereotypical caricatures. You can, and should, do a lot better than this. KFkairosfocus
November 9, 2013
November
11
Nov
9
09
2013
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
The comments regarding anti-semitism in the NT are directed at two groups, the Pharisees and the Sadducees. 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. The Pharisees and the Sadducees appear on this scene as important voices, capable of swaying public opinion even to the point of rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. (Matthew 15:1, 2; 16:1; John 11:47, 48; 12:42, 43) However, there is no mention of these two influential groups anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures. Josephus first mentions the Sadducees and the Pharisees in the context of the second century B.C.E. During this period many Jews were succumbing to the appeal of Hellenism, that is, Greek culture and philosophy. The tension between Hellenism and Judaism peaked when the Seleucid rulers defiled the temple in Jerusalem, dedicating it to Zeus. A dynamic Jewish leader, Judah Maccabee, of a family known as the Hasmonaeans, led a rebel army that freed the temple from Greek hands. The name Pharisees is generally connected to the Hebrew root meaning “separate ones,” although some view it as related to the word “interpreters.” Pharisees were scholars from among the common people, of no special descent. They separated themselves from ritual impurity by a philosophy of special piety, applying temple laws of priestly holiness to the ordinary situations of daily life. The Pharisees developed a new form of interpreting the Scriptures and a concept later known as the oral law. During Simon’s reign they gained greater influence when some were appointed to the Gerousia (council of older men), which later became known as the Sanhedrin. Josephus relates that John Hyrcanus was at first a pupil and supporter of the Pharisees. However, at a certain point, the Pharisees reproved him for not giving up the high priesthood. This led to a dramatic break. Hyrcanus outlawed the Pharisees’ religious ordinances. As an additional punishment, he sided with the Pharisees’ religious opponents, the Sadducees. The name Sadducees is likely connected with the High Priest Zadok, whose descendants had held the priestly office since Solomon’s time. However, not all Sadducees were of this line. According to Josephus, the Sadducees were the aristocrats and wealthy men of the nation, and they did not have the support of the masses. Professor Schiffman comments: “Most of them . . . were apparently priests or those who had intermarried with the high priestly families.” They had thus long been closely connected with those in power. Therefore, the increasing role of the Pharisees in public life and the Pharisaic concept of extending priestlike sanctity to all the people was perceived as a threat that could undermine Sadducean natural authority. Now, in the final years of Hyrcanus’ reign, the Sadducees regained control. In other words, Pharisees and Sadducees were independent groups that broke away from traditional Judaism. The period of the Hasmonaeans, from Judah Maccabee to Aristobulus II, laid the foundation for the divided religious scene that existed when Jesus was on earth. The Hasmonaeans began with zeal for worship of God, but that deteriorated into abusive self-interest. Their priests, who had the opportunity to unite the people in following God’s Law, led the nation into the abyss of political infighting. In this environment, divisive religious viewpoints flourished. The Hasmonaeans were no more, but the struggle for religious control between the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and others would characterize the nation now under Herod and Rome.Barb
November 9, 2013
November
11
Nov
9
09
2013
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
LT,
Yes, Christianity is part of Nazi ideology — this is exactly what I am saying.
You are profoundly wrong in this statement. 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!
I am in no way saying that the Nazis or Adolph Hitler were acting in a way that is consistent with what you present as Christianity’s core teachings. I cannot be any clearer than this.
Well, considering your previously quoted statement, maybe you could have been just a teensy bit clearer. ;-) Speaking of which, why don't you you give it a shot and go directly to the source material to see whether it's anti-semitic or anything that Hitler and his gang would have been interested in. This is what a scientist or researcher would do. Here's a link. It's an easy read and kind of fun. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=CJB The preface starts out like this:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
(In Greek, logos means an articulated concept, principle, or reason) -QQuerius
November 8, 2013
November
11
Nov
8
08
2013
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
LT: So that onlookers can see for themselves, let me roll the tape from 80 above where I responded to your list, citing your bolded heading and very first claimed example, Mk 3:6: ========= >>> I will take your very first example of alleged antisemitism and defamation as a case of a slice of cake with all the ingredients in it. First, your assertion:
The Gospel According to Mark contains about 40 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish rhetoric, as follows: 3:6, The Pharisees are said to have begun to plan to destroy Jesus . . .
But by simply reading the context, we can directly see:
Mk 3: 1 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there with a withered hand. 2 And they watched Jesus, to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man with the withered hand, “Come here.” 4 And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. 5 And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 The Pharisees went out and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him. 7 Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great crowd followed, from Galilee and Judea 8 and Jerusalem and Idumea and from beyond the Jordan and from around Tyre and Sidon. When the great crowd heard all that he was doing, they came to him.
In short, Jesus here is held in high regard by many ordinary people, specifically including people from Galilee and Judaea {and Jerusalem} — presumably largely Jews. But, he was held an enemy and schemed against by members of two power elite groups, Pharisees and Herodians. When for instance Jeremiah the prophet had a falling out with the Jewish kings of Judaea after Josiah, was he viewed as an anti-semite? Was Elijah an anti-semite when he destroyed groups of king’s men who came after him on instruction of Northern kings? Likewise, at the birth of the Hasmonean uprising, I read in 1 Macc:
1 Maccabees 2: . . . Mattathias the son of John, son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, moved from Jerusalem and settled in Mode’in [in the hill country of Judaea]. He had five sons, John surnamed Gaddi, Simon called Thassi, Judas called Maccabeus [i.e. "the hammer"], Eleazar called Avaran, and Jonathan called Apphus. He saw the blasphemies being committed in Judah and Jerusalem, and said, “Alas! Why was I born to see this, the ruin of my people, the ruin of the holy city, and to dwell there when it was given over to the enemy, the sanctuary given over to aliens? . . . ” And Mattathias and his sons rent their clothes, put on sackcloth, and mourned greatly. Then the king’s officers [i.e. those of Antiochus Epiphanes, Selucid Greek ruler in Syria] who were enforcing the apostasy came to the city of Mode’in to make them offer sacrifice. Many from Israel came to them; and Mattathias and his sons were assembled. Then the king’s officers spoke to Mattathias as follows: “You are a leader, honored and great in this city, and supported by sons and brothers. Now be the first to come and do what the king commands, as all the Gentiles and the men of Judah and those that are left in Jerusalem have done. Then you and your sons will be numbered among the friends of the king, and you and your sons will be honored with silver and gold and many gifts.” But Mattathias answered and said in a loud voice: “Even if all the nations that live under the rule of the king obey him, and have chosen to do his commandments, departing each one from the religion of his fathers, yet I and my sons and my brothers will live by the covenant of our fathers. Far be it from us to desert the law and the ordinances. We will not obey the king’s words by turning aside from our religion to the right hand or to the left.” When he had finished speaking these words, a Jew came forward in the sight of all to offer sacrifice upon the altar in Mode’in, according to the king’s command. When Mattathias saw it, be burned with zeal and his heart was stirred. He gave vent to righteous anger; he ran and killed him upon the altar. At the same time he killed the king’s officer who was forcing them to sacrifice, and he tore down the altar. Thus he burned with zeal for the law, as Phinehas did against Zimri the son of Salu.[1] Then Mattathias cried out in the city with a loud voice, saying: “Let every one who is zealous for the law and supports the covenant come out with me!” And he and his sons fled to the hills and left all that they had in the city. Then many who were seeking righteousness and justice went down to the wilderness to dwell there, they, their sons, their wives, and their cattle, because evils pressed heavily upon them . . .
Were these worthies who struck down a fellow Jew anti-semitic? (And, what did Jesus say to Peter when at the arrest in the garden, he cut off the High Priest’s servant’s ear? How does what Jesus said resonate with the fate of 4 of 5 Hasmonean brothers in the above uprising? Does Jesus’ teaching provide grounds for Nazis to violently attack Jews, and others, or does it not warn rather against the path of the sword, much less that of aggressive war, murder and theft by those means?) I have no doubt that some have distorted that hostility of elites in Mk 3:6 — which seems to be accurate history not defamation — into a general perceived enmity of Jews, but that is hardly John Mark’s fault or that of Peter whose testimony Mark records. The utterly strained, out of context nature of your citation does not commend your level of understanding of or familiarity with the NT, or that of the sources you seem to have used. Frankly, this one comes across as a mischievous, ill-informed, out of context, hostile misreading that does not even seem to recognise a commonplace of history: elites often retaliate against those who speak unwelcome truth to them. I think you need to go back and seriously think again about what led you to speak {at 1 above} in terms of “Christianity” being responsible for Hitler’s behaviour. >>> ========= When you used terms such as:
The Gospel According to Mark contains about 40 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish rhetoric, as follows: 3:6, The Pharisees are said to have begun to plan to destroy Jesus . . .
. . . 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. These terms are unjustified by the very evidence you listed, starting with the first case you listed "as follows" i.e. Mk 3:6. I took opportunity to show what was really going on and it is not defamation of Jews in general, but a very familiar clash with the elites in a context where the common Jewish people in material part supported and flocked to Jesus. The record speaks for itself, sadly, not to your credit. KFkairosfocus
November 8, 2013
November
11
Nov
8
08
2013
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
KF at 121: OK, I will endeavor to "distinguish a general problem in our increasingly polarised era," namely using the name of philosophy, science or reason to preach ideology. So, I frown upon preaching "atheism in the name of philosophy" just the same as preaching Christianity in the name of science. I assume you feel just the same. Next, you are setting up a polarizing strawman with this: "your list of alleged blatant cases of antisemitism in the NT." Mark 3:6 is not a case - blatant or otherwise - of antisemitism. It-is-not-a-case-of-antisemitism. 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. It casts the Jews in the roles that become stereotypical: schemers, hypocrites, legalists, elitist, power-hungry, blind. So, my claim is that it, like all the other in the list I made available, is a source. The passage also presents a defamatory and rhetorical depiction of Jews in the figure of the Pharisees, in my opinion, but it is relatively tame compared to other passages inside the NT and outside. Nevertheless, you are right that "defame" is a strong word. Since neither of us can be certain of what, if anything, might have transpired between a real Jesus-figure and the local leaders, maybe we should just use the word "negative" to describe how Jews are portrayed in the NT. Is that acceptable to you? Next, you say "I have to again remind you of the original exchange when I saw your (successful) diversionary attempt at 1, which taxed 'Christianity' as being a significant contributing factor to Hitler’s conduct." Gee whiz, Gordon, if you just read what you quote of me you can plainly see that I do not name Hitler but rather am following from Weikart to discuss "Nazi ideology." Yes, Christianity is part of Nazi ideology -- this is exactly what I am saying. Not Hitler and not Hitler's conduct. You must be better than this, so maybe you are the one trying "diversionary" tactics. And again, I am in no way blaming Christianity or the NT for the Nazis and for Adolph Hitler. I am in no way saying that the Nazis or Adolph Hitler were acting in a way that is consistent with what you present as Christianity's core teachings. I cannot be any clearer than this. Can we also recognize that Jews were not legitimate human beings to the Nazis, and therefore not able by definition to be murdered? Christianity's core ethical teachings are like many other ethical teachings from other traditions. The problem is often not the teachings themselves, but who they apply to and when. Finally, Weikart's argument seems to be well-grounded concerning what the Nazis believed in the arena of evolutionary ideas. Is that what you want to discuss, what the Nazis believed? Is what the Nazis believed supposed to impeach what Darwin had written about in 1859? If so, I think that's unfair and incorrect to do. It reminds me of humanities types, like myself, who use Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle as if it means we cannot really know about the world.LarTanner
November 8, 2013
November
11
Nov
8
08
2013
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Q: Indeed, the exemplary judgement -- mercifully brief -- was a sharp lesson that had it been heeded would have done much to correct racial prejudices. On balance, the evidence is, that scripture-twisting (often by Bible verse hopscotch that conveniently leaves out context and relevantly parallel cases providing key balances) that tickles itching ears with what they want to hear is far easier to indulge, than we may think. And soundness that cuts across what people wish to believe may well face what happened to Paul in Ac 17: prejudice-driven ill-advised, dismissive mockery by those who literally built a monument to their ignorance of the root of being who then turned around and refused to entertain evidence-backed enlightenment. Rather like how Plato speaking in Socrates' voice spoke of how the denizens of the Cave [doubtless, a veiled reference to Athens] preferred their shadow-shows to reality. But, long run, it is soundness that counts, whether or not the taste of it is bitter or sweet. One hopes one will not be in the position of a Gen Petain knowingly sending men up the road into a meat grinder of a battle, to buy time to put a sounder approach in place. KFkairosfocus
November 8, 2013
November
11
Nov
8
08
2013
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT
Thanks, KF. There are so many facets to all of this---the Bible never ceases to astonish me!
Thus, Hitler opposed miscegenation because it hindered evolutionary progress, which for him was the highest good. Since the whole point of this passage is to apply these principles to human racial relations, it is apparent that Hitler believed that humans had evolved and were still evolving. Hitler’s racial policy aimed at advancing human evolution.
It's not widely known that in the US, there were anti-miscegenation laws on the books until the US Supreme Court overturned them in 1967. Those who opposed inter-racial marriage on some vague religious arguments probably never read in the Bible what happened to Aaron's sister who used the opportunity of Moses marrying a black woman as a reason to undermine his leadership. Yes, it's there. God's response is pointed an ironic!Querius
November 7, 2013
November
11
Nov
7
07
2013
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Q: I put down a few thoughts on Is 52 - 53 here and here on. It is interesting in the context of the "according to the scriptures" in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, c AD 55. KFkairosfocus
November 7, 2013
November
11
Nov
7
07
2013
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
F/N: The following clip, regarding Hitler's remarks in Mein Kampf which have been cited here at UD several times, seems a good place to begin: ************ >> Evolution plays a central role in the chapter in Mein Kampf on “Nation and Race,” which was the only chapter published as a separate pamphlet, thus circulating widely to promote Nazi ideology. 19 In that chapter Hitler explains why he thinks racial mixing violates evolutionary principles:
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. 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 evolution of organic living beings would be unthinkable. 20
A few lines later he continues:
In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less deter-mined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher evolution.
Thus, Hitler opposed miscegenation because it hindered evolutionary progress, which for him was the highest good. Since the whole point of this passage is to apply these principles to human racial relations, it is apparent that Hitler believed that humans had evolved and were still evolving. Hitler’s racial policy aimed at advancing human evolution. >> ************ This seems a reasonable rendering and seems to provide a first level of warrant: a foundational book, from the sole chief leader of the party, separately published and widely disseminated to inculcate the ideology. In the bits Weikart does not specifically cite, Hitler goes on to create a rationale for predatory conduct and for dehumanising intended targets of aggression as inferior prey beneath empathy or concern. So, it seems there is substantial reason to be concerned on worldview implications, associations and influences of Darwinist thought, with this as a significant case study. Unpleasant and uncomfortable though it must be. But then, on such matters, I am of the declared opinion that we are only fitted for responsible roles in a world that presents major challenges if our hearts have lurched, deeply wounded. (And my example is the tragic and ambiguous figure, then Gen Petain, standing by the roadside at the Sacred Way, watching young men he is forced to send off into the face of a battle of attrition, throwing away a division every several days to buy time and space for the needed defences. Where his promotion had been retarded pre-war because he emphasised, against the tide, the need for the very defensive focus that was not there. And now he was responsible for a good part of the butcher's bill to be paid. [With the fore-shadows of where he would be in the aftermath of defeat in 1940 already dimly looming.]) History is painful, awfully painful, but we neglect its hard-bought lessons at our peril. KFkairosfocus
November 7, 2013
November
11
Nov
7
07
2013
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PDT
LT: Pardon, but you first need to distinguish a general problem in our increasingly polarised era that also is creeping into the College campus, for which I suggested a particular debate format with a panel of expert responders -- one I have successfully used -- and the particular issue for this thread. I did so in the direct context above of a BA77 link to a movie trailer on a professor abusing his authority as a teacher to intimidate students regarding his attempt to preach atheism in the name of philosophy. This is fictional, but it is notorious that the problem is real, and in fact resulted in a known case of suicide some years ago in the context of using Atheistical literature as reference material. So, too, while I note your list of bland denials above, I must secondly remind you of your list of alleged blatant cases of antisemitism in the NT in 64 above, beginning with this claim about Mark, which I responded to on the first alleged case of "defamat[ion]" in Mk 3:6, at 80 above on the one slice of the cake principle:
The Gospel According to Mark contains about 40 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish rhetoric, as follows: 3:6, The Pharisees are said to have begun to plan to destroy Jesus
Defamation is a very strong and specific word, which is specifically coloured in this context by the existence of a group known as the Anti Defamation League of B'nai B'rith which has a specific remit regarding antisemitism. So the language you used is loaded and has very direct implications, further multiplied by the context of the rise of Hitler. However, as the linked at 76 directly shows, this example, read in context, in fact simply shows that -- as the OT prophets before him -- Jesus confronted elites with their questionable conduct, and also that he drew a significant following from the common people of Galilee, Judaea (and even Jerusalem). As SB corrected you, it is improper to convert such speaking truth to power conflicts with elites -- a common part of the prophetic role -- into an accusation of defamation and antisemitism. Third, I have to again remind you of the original exchange when I saw your (successful) diversionary attempt at 1, which taxed "Christianity" as being a significant contributing factor to Hitler's conduct. Let me again clip, reproducing 110 above 9which you side stepped as though it were not there): ======== >>> I think I need to underscore the response I made at 2 to this, from LT at 1 above:
1 LarTanner November 1, 2013 at 10:11 am Page 552 [in Weikart's paper]: Nazi racial ideology—and the many policies based on it—were profoundly shaped by a Darwinian understanding of humanity. Certainly many non-Darwinian elements were synthesized with Darwinism: Aryan supremacy, antimiscegenation, antisemitism, and many more. Christianity and Lutherian views of Jews being critical non-Darwinian elements mixed in as well.
On seeing such, I noted: __________ >> 2 kairosfocus November 1, 2013 at 11:29 am LT, From your choice of words, you evidently want to indict the Christian faith in general for Nazism. May I therefore beg to remind you of the key relevant foundational Christian ethical teachings?
Ac 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,[c] 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;[d] as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’[e] Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal [--> these two cover aggressive warfare and the like as carried out by the Nazis right there], You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
In short, all men per creation from a common ancestor are held to be brothers and sisters, and we are4 reminded that in loving neighbour as self, we ought not to harm that neighbour, where the Good Samaritan is forever the standard of neighbourliness. Whatever evils Hitler may have imbibed (whether via church leaders or otherwise), he did not gain this from the core moral teaching of the Christian faith. Where, that core moral teaching — which holds authority over any given Church leader past or present — has been repeatedly publicly taught, documented knowledge for the better part of 2,000 years. >> ___________ It seems to me that such teachings have been record for nigh on 2,000 years, building on the Hebraic tradition that goes back many centuries beyond. No reasonable person can deny that these are in fact core Christian ethical teachings, echoing Jesus’ remarks in the Sermon on the Mount and the parable of the Good Samaritan, and more. It is quite obvious that those core teachings simply cannot be made in any wise compatible with the principles and practice of Hitler’s Nazism. Indeed, had they been heeded, Nazism would have got nowhere. Those are patent facts, and the remarks Peter made in warning against scripture-twisting and its perils are also facts. Yes, there have been adherents of Christian beliefs who have failed to live up to them, sometimes horribly. But it is not proper to equate distortion and disobedience — a challenge not exactly unknown in the accounts of the OT prophets — with easily shown core teachings and standards as though the distortion has the same validity as that which rebukes it. I think it is reasonable to expect you to be able to make that distinction, as simply an educated person. Kindly do so in future. >>> ======== In that light bland denials multiplied by rewriting concessions as though they were corrections does your credibility no good. I trust that in future, you will acknowledge the concerns we have had to highlight above. And one hopes that, even belatedly, this discussion can now actually address historical facts Weikart has brought to the table through this recent paper. His abstract, for instance summarises:
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 influ - enced 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. 1
He goes on to summarise his facts:
the claim [--> made by certain historians] 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.
Now, are these claimed facts so, and does Weikart substantiate reasonably? That, would seem to be a profitable onward focus. KFkairosfocus
November 7, 2013
November
11
Nov
7
07
2013
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
LarTanner, To be fair, also look at the Complete Jewish Bible by (Messianic) Rabbi David Stern. There are some outstanding additional sections in it that explain what he did and why. Stern also published his own commentary in a separate book. One "hot button" for Stern is references by Rabbi Saul/Paul to "the Law." Paul is an expert on Torah, and not denigrating it. Stern translates this as "the legalistic misapplication of the Law" instead.
On the other hand, many Jewish people will be uncomfortable reading John and Acts. I think such discomfort is warranted.
And many Jewish people are also uncomfortable reading Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Zechariah 12, and Daniel 9 (in which the Messiah's arrival is precisely predicted along with the fact that he will be killed, followed by the destruction of the temple). Other Jewish people and many Gentiles have made the decision to accept Jesus as the promised Messiah, and as God's sacrifice for their (and your) sins! Christians who are familiar with the Bible recognize that God will never ever forget the Jewish people, and will give them extra honor for their suffering in maintaining the integrity of the Tanakh. They remember from the scriptures that anyone who harasses the Jews is putting their finger in God's eye! Give it a chance.Querius
November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
This:
I think on matters of real controversy, there should be open debates and panels, or better yet, both. A debate, responded to by a panel, with comments then questions and then opened to the floor. But, such works only if there is willingness to admit that informed and serious people hold diverse views. The ad hominem laced strawmsn caricature stereotyping –> scapegoating and branding with a scarlet letter –> no true scotsman put-down game is all too common, and underlies Dawkins’ outrageously sophomoric dismmissals: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.
Who have I scapegoated? Have I branded Christianity as responsible for Nazism? No. Have I said that Christianity leads to Nazism? No. Have I said that the New Testament is antisemitic? No. Have I said that Nazi ideology used Christianity? Yes. Have I said that Nazi ideology used scientific theories, practices and ideas, including the theory of evolution? Yes. Have I said that historically, Christian antisemitism has drawn upon the New Testament for scriptural justification for hostility toward Jews? Yes. I admit having a hard time seeing any of these positions above as controversial, but you all think the purpose of my earlier list of defamatory statements was an attempt to call the NT antisemitic. It wasn't such an attempt but was rather -- in addition to being my response to a call for examples/back-up -- an illustration of the sources (the SOURCES) of Jewish stereotypes and suspicions. On the other hand, many Jewish people will be uncomfortable reading John and Acts. I think such discomfort is warranted. I also don't particularly like the depictions represented by Shylock or Fagin. But, lest I be accused again of having little understanding or appreciation of the NT -- which may be true, although I have read it many times in a few different languages -- I will review my new purchase of the Jewish Annotated New Testament and post my commentaries of each book.LarTanner
November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
If LT wanted to make a case against the the Darwin-Hitler connection, he ought to have approached it this way. "No, the most profound influences on Hitler were Machiavelli and Nietzsche, both of whom were bed-time reading for the Fuhrer. The former taught him how to say one thing when he means another and the latter taught him to hate God. There was no bible reading during that formation period." Now I could meet that objection, but at least it would be based on a reasonable and a rational argument. It would have some substance and basis in fact. It would reflect Hitler's true intellectual orientation and it would explain his behavior.StephenB
November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
BA77: The trailer is eye-opening. KFkairosfocus
November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Q: Abuse of power and intimidation are academic bullying, period. There should be academic ethics standards about such. (Sometimes there are, but who will bell the cat? [BA77's movie trailer is about that. I now think we should give supplementary, parallel education to equip and support those who have to face the sort of atmosphere to be found too often on the college campus.]) I think on matters of real controversy, there should be open debates and panels, or better yet, both. A debate, responded to by a panel, with comments then questions and then opened to the floor. But, such works only if there is willingness to admit that informed and serious people hold diverse views. The ad hominem laced strawmsn caricature stereotyping --> scapegoating and branding with a scarlet letter --> no true scotsman put-down game is all too common, and underlies Dawkins' outrageously sophomoric dismmissals: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Unfortunately too much of the above from LT reeks of this attitude, and I don't think he recognises how unnecessarily polarising and off-putting his behaviour is. (Ironically, today, Jews have ONE serious ally in the battles over world opinion, Bible-believing serious Christians; a point recognised by at least some key political and religious leaders; e.g. I think Mr Netanyahu does, whatever one may think of him in general. Yes, there are longstanding theological debates, such as on Isa 52 - 53 and "according to the scriptures" in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11. But, that does not excuse the blunder of projecting patently false accusations of antisemitism against the NT (with the similar insinuations that the OT in the vernacular is a case of dishonest translation of the Heb text . . . ) and pretending that the core ethical teachings and warnings against scripture-twisting, taken seriously, are not corrective. Yes, adherents of Christianity have done serious wrong, but -- regrettably -- realistically when it comes to movements that are broad and long enduring, that is to be expected: wheat and tares, cf. what the OT prophets had to say. A little discernment of one's true friends would go a long way. As someone who comes from a history of oppression and injustice amounting to now acknowledged crimes against humanity that was sustained for centuries, and who learned the difference between wheat and tares, sheep and wolves in sheep's clothing . . . or shepherd's clothing, I think I have a right to say this without being unnecessarily saddled with ill-grounded accusations and suspicions that have little or no bearing on actual merits.) As for the Princeton prof-random commenter on the web attitude, that is a capital example of intellectual malpractice. Above, I showed -- by dint of simply citing context in a credible translation -- that the very first example of alleged antisemitic defamation in Mark, from 3:6 is nothing of the sort; in a context where one slice of the cake has in it all the ingredients. Yes, there is a clash with ruling elites and pointing to hypocrisy and dirty politics that came to a climax one certain Friday outside Jerusalem on a cross -- that was Friday, but Sunday was coming . . . -- where, at the same time, we see the common people of Galilee, Judaea (and even Jerusalem!) flocking to this new, refreshing . . . and patently, Jewish . . . voice. A pattern that should be instantly familiar from the careers of OT prophets, and which should be very familiar from the force of the saying on speaking unwelcome truth to power. If LT had the substance on the merits, it would have been easy for him to demolish my remarks from the context. For, there would have been facts and reasoning on facts to show defamation. Blanket demands to submit to the pronouncements of an un-named professor, without even outlining reasons simply disrespects our ability to reason. And to pretend that the fact not in dispute -- that some have twisted cases like this in support of an existing attitude -- does not suddenly confer on such equal warrant to what can be seen on a reasonable, generally informed common sense based reading. (Do I need to highlight that such texts on how elites, pagan and jewish alike abuse power and on the prophet's duty to speak unwelcome reforming truth to such have given backbone to more than one voice? Do I need to explicitly point to Ezekiel 33 on this? Do I need to elaborate on the similar force of "that was Friday?") There is need to move on beyond the sort of sophomoric exercise in out of context twisted proof texting that LT unfortunately indulged above. I don't know if he is lurking, but it is necessary to speak here for record. KFkairosfocus
November 6, 2013
November
11
Nov
6
06
2013
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT
KF, Whether it's harassing Christians, or promoting their own opinions, professors need to make an ethical distinction between a podium and a pulpit. This includes using their position of authority to intimidate students with tactics such as deep sighs, looking up, eye-rolling, and head-shaking to mock a student's beliefs. I believe every educator should be required to watch the films, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, and Stand Up and Deliver. BA77, Thanks for the links. How many Freshmen are equipped and mature enough to firmly but politely stand up against professors who abuse their position of authority? This is tough for even an adult to do, plus the professor always has the last word. One thing that would help is public debates between faculty members (these debates do not necessarily need to be on religious or political topics). Debates would tend to force professors to treat opposing views with a little more respect, and it would demonstrate to students that professors can and do vehemently disagree with each other. This would be a Good Thing in my opinion. It would help everyone to practice critical thinking, and not just accept whatever a professor says. Of course, the problem remains that many universities lack diversity of world views . . . -QQuerius
November 5, 2013
November
11
Nov
5
05
2013
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
Querius, Amen Brother! It is extremely funny for me to see atheists trying to prove God does not exist to people who know for a fact that He does exist because they have had a spiritual experience of and from Him. As to the 'bitter old professor', I think you may find this trailer of a forthcoming movie interesting:
God's Not Dead | Official Full Movie Trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMjo5f9eiX8
============== Of related note: The most radical, outrageous, claim of the Bible? That God, the creator of the universe, can be known personally by each of us!
Temple Veil – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDNHoijNO2I God Can Be Personally Known and Experienced – Dr. Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWL5QhBQB30 A Study From The Second Epistle of Peter, Chapter One by Lambert Dolphin Knowing God Personally and Intimately Excerpt: Can a person embark on a journey that leads to knowing God? The overwhelming claim of the Bible is yes! Not only can anyone of us know the Lord and the Creator of everything that exists, we are invited—even urged—each one of us, to know him intimately, personally and deeply. http://ldolphin.org/Eightfld.html
There are millions upon millions of people in the world, including myself, who have personally experienced a miraculous touch from Jesus Christ in their lives when they have called on Him. Here is one such story in this following video (starting at the 6:40 minute mark):
Have You Experienced Jesus - Episode 8 - video Excerpt: At the 6:40 minute mark of this video, Kay Sorenson a former Las Vegas Singer at the age of 46 had an amazing born again experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNcXkMxQjDU&feature=player_detailpage#t=400s
bornagain77
November 5, 2013
November
11
Nov
5
05
2013
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Q: It seems that part of this is that those who abuse authority as teachers have a lot to answer for. Indeed, I note that James 3 -- though it applies to the matter of gossip, slander, over-talking, imprudent speech, foolish talk and jesting etc -- is actually primarily and focally addressed to the responsibility of the teacher:
James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness . . . . 11 Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water.
Too often, those in the seat of the educator, fail this test. The actual textual evidence such as Mark 3:6 in context, prevails over all systems and schemes, certifications and credentials, or Councils. Which was of course the point of much of the protestant reformation. (A point Luther, who came in for knocks above, got right.) KFkairosfocus
November 5, 2013
November
11
Nov
5
05
2013
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Thank you for the link, bornagain77. Be sure to look at http://www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm. And the only thing I'd add to the apparently futile attempt to educate LarTanner is that once people have made up their minds, especially in ignorance of the Tanakh and the B'rit Chadashah, and the experience of an encounter with God's son, Yeshua HaMachiach, and who make the mistake of depending on the opinions of some ideologically contaminated academics, there is little hope that they would tear themselves away from the opinions they hold dear in spite of our testimony of a powerful, shared, life-changing experience with the love of God. LarTanner, using an appeal-to-authority argument sarcastically wrote:
Brent and Eric, I guess a doctorate from Princeton Theological Seminary doesn’t qualify one of my main sources for the list. I’ll tell the old professor that two randoms on the internet think he doesn’t know the NT. He’ll be crushed, I’m sure.
Yes, it will indeed be exactly as you said: a bitter old professor certainly will be crushed by the glory and love of the living God, before which everyone will eventually stand alone to answer for their willful selfishness and pride. Oh, and I'd be delighted to be called a "random" or anything else along with my brothers and sisters here! - QQuerius
November 4, 2013
November
11
Nov
4
04
2013
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
PDT
SB: You simply copied and pasted reports in which Jesus or one of the apostles criticized the Pharisees or Chief priests and then tried to pass it off as anti-semitism. Lar Tanner
No, that’s not what’s happening at all.
You provided a list of passages with no other explanation, as if the anti-semitism speaks for itself. It doesn't. You have yet to make your case. That is going to be difficult since there is no case to make.StephenB
November 4, 2013
November
11
Nov
4
04
2013
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
F/N: I think I need to underscore the response I made at 2 to this, from LT at 1 above:
1 LarTanner November 1, 2013 at 10:11 am Page 552 [in Weikart's paper]:
Nazi racial ideology—and the many policies based on it—were profoundly shaped by a Darwinian understanding of humanity. Certainly many non-Darwinian elements were synthesized with Darwinism: Aryan supremacy, antimiscegenation, antisemitism, and many more.
Christianity and Lutherian views of Jews being critical non-Darwinian elements mixed in as well.
On seeing such, I noted: __________ >> 2 kairosfocus November 1, 2013 at 11:29 am LT, From your choice of words, you evidently want to indict the Christian faith in general for Nazism. May I therefore beg to remind you of the key relevant foundational Christian ethical teachings?
Ac 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,[c] 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;[d] as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’[e] Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal [--> these two cover aggressive warfare and the like as carried out by the Nazis right there], You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
In short, all men per creation from a common ancestor are held to be brothers and sisters, and we are4 reminded that in loving neighbour as self, we ought not to harm that neighbour, where the Good Samaritan is forever the standard of neighbourliness. Whatever evils Hitler may have imbibed (whether via church leaders or otherwise), he did not gain this from the core moral teaching of the Christian faith. Where, that core moral teaching — which holds authority over any given Church leader past or present — has been repeatedly publicly taught, documented knowledge for the better part of 2,000 years. >> ___________ It seems to me that such teachings have been record for nigh on 2,000 years, building on the Hebraic tradition that goes back many centuries beyond. No reasonable person can deny that these are in fact core Christian ethical teachings, echoing Jesus' remarks in the Sermon on the Mount and the parable of the Good Samaritan, and more. It is quite obvious that those core teachings simply cannot be made in any wise compatible with the principles and practice of Hitler's Nazism. Indeed, had they been heeded, Nazism would have got nowhere. Those are patent facts, and the remarks Peter made in warning against scripture-twisting and its perils are also facts. Yes, there have been adherents of Christian beliefs who have failed to live up to them, sometimes horribly. But it is not proper to equate distortion and disobedience -- a challenge not exactly unknown in the accounts of the OT prophets -- with easily shown core teachings and standards as though the distortion has the same validity as that which rebukes it. I think it is reasonable to expect you to be able to make that distinction, as simply an educated person. Kindly do so in future. KFkairosfocus
November 4, 2013
November
11
Nov
4
04
2013
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
PS: Pardon me for being direct, but -- on the strength of the above -- you come across as never having read the NT in any meaningful sense. Rather, you come across (remember, I come from a country where the same NT and OT were instruments of liberation in the hands of men like Liele and Knibb, Equiano, Wilberforce and Buxton, etc.) as having come to it with a chip on the shoulder looking for any trigger to unleash a seething anger. Yes, there is an obvious 2,000 year old theological dispute over messiah, with Isa 52 - 53 as the epicentre, which is not going to be settled until the event of Zech 12:10. Yes, there is a pretty sordid record of elite misbehaviour in both the NT and the OT, but that is par for the course of history: power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Yes, adherents of the Christian faith -- despite the scripture and obvious ethical principles to the contrary -- did some awful crimes that still have consequences. (On the history, Hitler was not one of these, he seems to have been neo-pagan- skeptical but perfectly willing to manipulate ill informed Christian people and gaol men like Niemoller or the like who objected, and he cut off the heads of the White Rose martyrs who exposed his evil in the name of God.) But none of that justifies your attempt above to indict the NT, imply willfully deceptive conspiracy to distort the OT, and pretend that Christianity -- which on a reasonable understanding involves the core faith and its foundations -- is antisemitic and responsible for Hitler's behaviour. I strongly suggest you rethink.kairosfocus
November 4, 2013
November
11
Nov
4
04
2013
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
LT: you state:
"Really, do try and be more critical. Maybe try imagining what it’s like to be a Jew and to read the NT."
when StephenB stated the obvious:
You simply copied and pasted reports in which Jesus or one of the apostles criticized the Pharisees or Chief priests and then tried to pass it off as anti-semitism.
Maybe you should take your own advice and try to be a bit more critical? Why should a Jewish person be upset that Jesus's main enemies were the religious leaders of his day? Indeed they were the ones who orchestrated his crucifixion! Clearly Jesus was castigating those who thought they had God all figured out, but, in reality, because of their lust for power, had missed God in the flesh, Jesus their Messiah, altogether.
Luke 19:41-44 And when he (Jesus) was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
LT, for you to (purposely?) fail to make this important distinction between self serving religious leaders, and the Jewish people as a whole, is what is truly 'not fair or right in any case'. Simply inexcusable for someone claiming to be reasonable!bornagain77
November 4, 2013
November
11
Nov
4
04
2013
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
LT: Pardon, but the matter is quite plain, and not in your favour or that of the sources you used. Whether one looks in OT -- I cited Jeremiah -- or NT, you will find clashes between elites and those who made prophetic or social critiques of the sort of things elites too often fall into. These are reports of incidents and are all within Judaism. The NT Gospels fall well within that pattern. The NT also explicitly sets core moral principles that cut across racist prejudice of all types. That -- as the NT warns against! -- some would come along and wrench principles and cases out of context has little to do with the core teachings or examples. That is obvious, too. Unfortunately, SB is manifestly right, you are acting as though any critique of a Jewish leader is an expression of racist hatred of Jews. Sorry, that is so outlandish that it simply will not wash. For instance, there are some very questionable incidents due to the action of modern Israeli leaders (try the things that led to massacres in camps in Lebanon) and individuals like was it Baruch Goldstein. If I were to criticise such leaders or individuals for their actions, it would not be reasonable to deem that anti-semitism. Likewise, I disagree with you in how you have handled the NT text and how you have tried to denigrate the OT, for cause. That does not make me antisemitic. (My honorary Jewish mom and bro would shake their heads at such a notion.) Frankly, at this point you are coming across like the foolishly blind supporters of Mr Obama who seem to imagine that any criticism of their leader must be motivated by racism. Sorry, it does not work that way. When it comes to Nazism and several other movements of that era, it is an easily shown historical fact that Darwinism, Social Darwinism, eugenics and the like were very important influences that had in them serious moral hazards. Nazism was an extreme case, but -- save to one who wishes to turn Darwinism into a holy cow -- the lines of influence are plain. We need to face those influences and make reforms that make it unlikely that similar problems will crop up again; and that extends across the whole domain of ethics of sci and tech. (Physics, let us never forget, was responsible for nuke weapons. Chemistry, for Chem weapons, and so forth.) Just as our civilisation as a whole needs to face its historic sins and address them. Don't forget, I come from and live in a region whose history is shaped by 500 years of Western expansionism and oppression. It is time to face facts, and do something positive about them. KFkairosfocus
November 4, 2013
November
11
Nov
4
04
2013
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 7

Leave a Reply