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
LT:
The differences between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Old Testament are much broader and deeper than you have characterized. They are different altogether texts because the words, the punctuation, the mechanical features, and the interpretive apparatus of the OT all presuppose a Christological reading.
Pardon, but this starts out on the wrong foot. First, Jewish scribal codices and manuscripts -- often from Genizas of Synagogues -- are routinely used by professional exegetes, and such certainly form the basis of modern English translation. Where of course a revolution in Biblical studies was triggered by the Dead Sea scrolls. Second, the principal early "Christian translation" of the OT was not actually Christian. That is, the Septuagint dates to probably C2 - 3 BC. Differences between MSS traditions and over interpretations are different from the claim you are making, two different books, with a fairly obvious subtext of, you Christians have twisted the text. KFkairosfocus
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
LarTanner:
10:8, The Jews are said to be thieves and robbers
Liar John 10:1 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber.Mung
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
If the intent is to smear Christianity, facts hardly matter.Mung
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Lar Tanner, in an attempt to escape refutation of his false charges of anti-semitism in the New Testament, hopes to fill cyberspace with so many unexamained passages that no one can respond to the sheer volume of it all. Well, not so fast. In fact, not a single example qualifies. Rather than plunge in into the whole irrational mess, I will just take up a few examples:
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 7:6-13, Condemnation of the Pharisees for rejecting the commandments 8:15, Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees 10:2-5, The Pharisees are said to be hard-hearted 14:55-65, The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death 15:1-15, The crowd demands that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified.
This is hilarious. All the passages that have been cited here reflect history. It isn't anti-semitic to report events as they happened. There is not a single rhetorical flourish in the bunch. At this point, I will just take one from each group:
22:18c, The Pharisees are called hypocrites
Well, duh, yeah, they were hypocrites. So said Jesus, who was JEWISH. Was Jesus, a Jew, an anti-semite.
22:63-71, The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death
Well, yes, of course, they did. As everyone knows, they plotted against Jesus and successfully arranged his death. You may recall (if you ever knew) that Pilate tried to find a way out and they wouldn't give it to him.
10:8, The Jews are said to be thieves and robbers</blockquote
Who do you think Jesus ran out of the temple for unethical trading--Babylonians? This is incredible.
It seems clear to me that antisemitic attitudes were written into the NT from the beginning.
By whom? Which anti-semite Jew wrote them in?StephenB
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. - Gal. 4:24-26, 30-31
Mung
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
LarTanner:
Oh boy, I think I’ve broken poor Mung….
To be honest, I expected better from you. I should have known better.Mung
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
LarTanner, you left one out:
For you are not a true Jew just because you were born of Jewish parents or because you have gone through the ceremony of circumcision. - Rom. 2:28
Mung
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
LarTanner:
These are rhetorical questions.
Of course.Mung
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Oh boy, I think I've broken poor Mung.... LarTanner
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
LarTanner:
Next up: Sources of antisemitism in the Christian NT.
Seriously? "It is said..."? "Are said to have..."? It's like your source doubts the authenticity of the accounts. Does your source offer an opinion about the origin of each of these statements?Mung
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
LarTanner:
First, however, let me give appreciation to KF in comment 59 for calling out Mung’s stupidity in 55. Mung, you personally show why the term “IDiot” is not limited only to intelligent design creationism.
You didn't understand what either I or kf wrote, but I'm the idiot. Right. You're the one claiming the bible is anti-semitic, but I'm the IDiot. Right. Let me tell you what is anti-semetic. Anti-semetic is encouraging 'Jews' to emigrate to Israel while believing that there is another future holocaust far worse than what took place in Germany (and elsewhere) coming in the near future that will center upon that area of the world and that it will be the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. That's anti-semetic, and that is (as far as I know) a uniquely 'Christian' belief. So why not focus yourself on that?
Next up: Sources of antisemitism in the Christian NT.
I can't wait. Anti-Semitism does not come from the New Testament, it comes from people. It's like your Anti-Christianity, which doesn't come from a book, it comes from you. But just for starters, will you be citing Jewish sources or Christian sources?Mung
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
kairosfocus
Even someone as beset by out of control anger as Luther who said and wrote inexcusably intemperate things about Jews, cannot properly be viewed as characterising the Christian faith as a whole. Luther has some serious explaining to do, and probably would have been horrified as to the long term consequences of his intemperate and incendiary remarks, but his blunders are not to properly be seen as characterising the Christian faith from roots up.
Correct. On the subject of anti-semitism. Luther was, not at first, but finally, guilty; St Paul was innocent from beginning to end.StephenB
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
You want sources of antisemitism in the NT? You got it. My earlier comment gave "law" as only one example showing how significantly different the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian OT are. We could add several more examples, but I really don't wish to have an extended argument on this point. I feel, however, that Christians are well instructed to appreciate how divergent Judaism and Christianity are: these are not mere squabbles over Jesus or Torah but rather conflicting theories about God and history Now I'll return to provide examples of passages in the Christian NT that were used to validate and justify centuries-long prejudice, policy, persecution, and violence against Jewish people. After you review all the examples, you may want to dispute that they are antisemitic, or that otherwise well-meaning people got Jesus' message wrong, but in doing so you would deny history and then deny the power of Jesus' message. People who learned of Jews from the texts and from their commentaries/commentators drew upon the passages I will cite as authoritative. It happened, and you cannot revise that. Yet if you accept that either the texts are unfortunately wrong or can be taken wrong, then you admit not only the fallibility of the NT (and its writers/readers) but also failure of whatever divine inspiration is supposed to be behind the NT. Remember, we have nothing in the NT that can be verified as "what Jesus actually said," just as we have no verified facts about Jesus. These are the mysteries of faith, and perhaps they can simply be ignored as inconsequential. One more prefatory remark: In comment 38, Barry Arrington unbelievably states that sources of antisemitism in the NT are "Nonexistent." In comment 41, CentralScrutinizer also wants to see some examples. CS also boasts of having better ancient Greek than I do. He might, except that as a scholar of early medieval literature and language Ancient Greek was part of what I needed to know -- a little -- to be able to assess the period in its context. I am no longer a professional scholar, but I say only in passing that I have a little familiarity with Greek, though I really have not seen an opportunity in this discussion to bring out my old textbooks and readers in Greek. On to the examples. This is not my own analysis but a composite; I mention this only to remind you that very many others with impeccable credentials are quite aware of the these examples. The usual responses are to deny that they are actually antisemetic, to assert that they are not (as) antisemitic in context, or to admit they are antisemitic and to explain that its a contextual instance and not a general condemnation of all Jews for all time. Pick your strategy as it suits you. 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 7:6-13, Condemnation of the Pharisees for rejecting the commandments 8:15, Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees 10:2-5, The Pharisees are said to be hard-hearted 14:55-65, The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death 15:1-15, The crowd demands that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified. The Gospel According to Matthew contains about 80 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish rhetoric: 3:7c, The Pharisees and Sadducees are called poisonous snakes 12:34a, The Pharisees are called evil poisonous snakes 15:3-9, Condemnation of the Pharisees for rejecting the commandments 15:12-14, The Pharisees are called blind guides leading the blind 16:6, Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees 19:3-9, The Pharisees are said to be hard-hearted 19:28, The disciples of Jesus will judge the twelve tribes of Israel 22:18c, The Pharisees are called hypocrites 23:13-36, The scribes and Pharisees are repeatedly vilified as hypocrites 23:38, The house of Jerusalem is to be forsaken and desolate 26:59-68, The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death 27:1-26, The people demand that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified 27:62-66, The chief priests and Pharisees request a guard at Jesus' tomb 28:4, The guards tremble and become like dead when the angel appears 28:11-15, The chief priest bribe the guards to lie about their actions. The Gospel According to Luke contains about 60 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish rhetoric: 3:7c, The multitudes are called poisonous snakes 4:28-30, The members of the synagogue in Nazareth try to kill Jesus 7:30, The Pharisees are said to have rejected the purposes of God 11:39-54, The Pharisees and Torah scholars are repeatedly condemned 12:1b, Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy 13:14-17, The ruler of the synagogue is condemned as a hypocrite 13:35a, The house of Jerusalem is to be forsaken 22:63-71, The chief priests and council condemn Jesus as deserving death 23:1-25, The people demand that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified. The Gospel According to John contains about 130 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish rhetoric: 5:16-18, The Jews are said to have persecuted Jesus and wanted to kill him 5:37b-47, It is said that God's word and God's love is not in the Jews 7:19-24, It is said that none of the Jews do (what is written in) the Torah 7:28d, It is said that the Jews do not know the One who has sent Jesus 8:13-28, It is said that the Pharisees know neither Jesus nor the Father 8:37-59, The Jews are said to be descendants of their father, the Devil 9:13-41, The Pharisees and other Jews are condemned as guilty 10:8, The Jews are said to be thieves and robbers 10:10a, The Jews are depicted as those who steal and kill and destroy 10:31-39, The Jews are said to have picked up stones to throw at Jesus 11:53, It is said that the Jews realized that they would have to kill Jesus 11:57, It is said that the chief priests and Pharisees wanted to seize Jesus 12:10, It is said that the chief priests planned to kill Lazarus and Jesus 12:36b-43, It is said that most Jews loved the praise of men more than of God 16:2-4, (The Jews who) kill Jesus' disciples will think they are serving God 18:28-32, The Jews are said to have demanded that Pilate sentence Jesus to death 18:38b-40, The Jews are said to be demanding that Jesus, not Barabbas, be crucified 19:4-16, The Jews are depicted as insisting to Pilate that Jesus be crucified. The Acts of the Apostles has approximately 140 verses of defamatory anti-Jewish rhetoric: 2:23b, Peter tells the men of Israel that they crucified Jesus 2:36b, Again Peter tells the men of Israel that they crucified Jesus 3:13b-15a, Peter tells the men of Israel that they killed the originator of life 4:10a, Again Peter tells the men of Israel that they killed Jesus 5:30b, Peter tells the members of the Jewish council that they killed Jesus 6:11-14, Some Jews are said to have brought false accusations against Stephen 7:51-60, Stephen is shown as condemning the Jews for betraying and killing Jesus 9:1-2, Paul is depicted as planning the arrest of disciples of Jesus 9:23-25, Jews are said to have plotted to kill Paul 9:29b, Jewish Hellenists are also said to have tried to kill Paul 12:1-3a, It is said that the Jews were pleased when Herod killed James 12:3b-4, Herod is said to have seized Peter also to please the Jews 12:11, Peter is said to have realized that the Jews wanted to kill him 13:10-11, Paul is said to have condemned the Jew Elymas as a son of the Devil 13:28-29a, It is said that the Jews had asked Pilate to crucify Jesus 13:39d, It is said that Jews cannot be forgiven by means of the Torah 13:45-46, Jews are said to have spoken against Paul 13:50-51, Jews are said to have encouraged persecution of Paul and Barnabas 14:1-6, Many Jews opposing Paul and Barnabas and attempting to stone them 14:19-20, Jews are said to have stoned Paul, thinking that they had killed him 17:5-9, Jews are said to have incited a riot, looking for Paul and Silas 17:13, Jews are said to have stirred up turmoil against Paul 18:6, Paul said to have told the Jews, "Your blood will be on your own heads!" 18:12-17, Jews are said to have brought accusations against Paul 19:13-19, Jewish exorcists are shown to be condemned 21:27-36, Jews are depicted as seizing Paul and as trying to kill him 22:4-5, Paul says that when he was a Jew he had persecuted Christians 23:2-5, Paul is said to have condemned the chief priest for striking Paul 23:12-22, Jews are said to have plotted to eat nothing until they kill Paul 23:27-30, Paul is said to have been nearly killed by the Jews 24:9, The Jews are said to have accused Paul of many crimes 25:2-5, Jews are said to have plotted to kill Paul 25:7-11, Jews are said to have continued to bring accusations against Paul 25:15-21, Jews are said to have spoken repeatedly against Paul 25:24, All Jews are said to have shouted that Paul must be killed 26:21, The Jews are said to have seized Paul and tried to kill him 28:25-28, Paul is said to have condemned the Jews for never understanding God. It seems clear to me that antisemitic attitudes were written into the NT from the beginning. The question generated from the OP is whether these attitudes were part of Nazi ideology, and this also seems clear to me. Here, for instance, is an excerpt from the 24th principle of the Nazi party, from the Twenty Five Points (1920):
We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.
The Party represents a positive Christianity. Indeed. I can provide additional quotes, but can I ask why we are denying that the Nazis drew upon and used Christianity in their personal and political practice? What is to be gained by revising history in such a way? These are rhetorical questions.LarTanner
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Lar Tanner
Next up: Sources of antisemitism in the Christian NT.
Trumping up false charges of anti-semitism against the New Testament has nothing at all to do with the historical fact that Hitler was a Darwinist and was not a Christian.StephenB
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
I see I am on the hook to bring out examples from that Greek Testament that are, as I said, sources of antisemitism. So I'll bring the examples out. First, however, let me give appreciation to KF in comment 59 for calling out Mung's stupidity in 55. Mung, you personally show why the term "IDiot" is not limited only to intelligent design creationism. But, KF, your point number 9 in comment 59 is flatly incorrect. You say that the Tanakh and the OT are "substantially the same, just differently organised." The differences between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Old Testament are much broader and deeper than you have characterized. They are different altogether texts because the words, the punctuation, the mechanical features, and the interpretive apparatus of the OT all presuppose a Christological reading. The Hebrew Scriptures do not have this presupposition, although late-ancient and early medieval development of the Tanakh suggests to me that it was increasingly read in such a way as to limit potential Christology. To illustrate the difference between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian OT, look at the way the two traditions tend (or have tended) to present "law" in their English versions. English renderings of the Hebrew Scriptures will often give "the Torah" -- meaning a specific set of instructions, narratives, and records -- where the Christian OT give "the law" -- a more abstract formulation. The theological and religious difference between Judaism and Christianity inheres in this very difference because the Christian argument is that Judaism errs by overvaluing, or even idolizing, the law. The Jewish argument is that Christianity has erred by rejecting that which has been given by God directly to all the Hebrew slaves and their descendants. So, contra KF, the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian OT must properly be understood as fundamentally different and irreconcilable texts. Their different number of books and different arrangements are only part of much more substantial conflicts. Next up: Sources of antisemitism in the Christian NT.LarTanner
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
PS: Those wishing to understand the grounds for the core gospel message regarding Jesus as Messiah and Saviour, may wish to read here on in context. Here on specifically addresses "according to the {Hebraic] Scriptures."kairosfocus
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT
Mung: Pardon, I am not here intent on multi-sided theological debates, which are not really proper for UD anyway. But as LT raised a general accusation against "Christianity," that needs to be addressed. In that context, I ask that it be kept in mind that first I explicitly summarised the views of Christians who are Zionists. Those views are a matter of record and direct familiarity. That such widely held views exist immediately undermines any attempt to insinuate or suggest by invidious linkage to Hitler's demonic folly and mass murder, that the Christian faith as a whole or its movements in toto, can be broad-brush characterised as hostile to Jewishness. Next, as there is a view that tries to disconnect today's Jews from those of classical times, I note: 1 --> Judaism c. C1, was a missionary religion (as is reflected in the remarks of Jesus on making proselytes in a context of a defective approach to religiosity, as well as the presence of the God-fearers that crop up so often in the NT). 2 --> Jewishness, historically, is not only a matter of ethnicity, but of covenant. So, accession to the covenant makes one and one's descendants who maintain that identity authentically Jewish. Even in the days of the Exodus, Caleb (one of the faithful two spies) was a Kenizite, i.e. an Edomite. 3 --> It is also not a coincidence that David's ancestry included both Rahab (a Canaanite woman) and Ruth (a Moabitess, who seems to have been close to the royal house of that nation). Likewise, Moses' wife -- possibly a second wife after the death of Zipporah -- was a [dark skinned] Cushite -- and in the record, God punished those who objected. (This sort of almost footnoted record is evidence of considerable mixing, and directly cuts across the racialist insinuations involved in accusations of "Genocide.") 4 --> So, even if there were good reason to take stories of the Kazar accession to the covenant seriously as dominating Ashkenazi Jews, that accession would be legitimate. 5 --> But in fact, the Y-Chromosome summaries I have seen, indicate that the Ashkenazi Jews are closely related to Jews from the Middle East (known to derive from settlements and the exiles of 2600 years ago . . .), to Arabs, and to Kurds. That is, it seems there is such a thing as Y- Chromosome Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. (I have a personal suspicion that the Kurds, who come from the right region, may well be descended from some of the famously lost tribes, though there are obviously groups from as far away as India and China that have been acknowledged as having a claim, and there is a group from far to the south in Africa as well.) 6 --> The suggestion I have seen from apparent lack of common female ancestors, is that circles of Jewish men settled in areas -- perhaps as merchants or as refugees or even slaves. They took wives from local girls, then a covenantal community formed and continued. [NB: There was a HUGE wave of Jewish slaves post the AD 66 war, to the point where slave prices were apparently depressed. Also, some have argued that a part of the success of the Christian faith is that the AD 79 eruption that hit the playground of the Roman elites, was seen as divine punishment for the degrading enslavement of Jews, e.g. the prostitutes in the obscene wall pictures from Pompeii may very well have been Jewish captives.] 7 --> On the other side of Jewish resettlement in Israel, we have continuity in part (there is apparently a village in Galilee that traces back to the classic times), and in part waves of irreconcilable refugees from the wider ME amounting to originally some 600,000. These Jews and their descendants are the core of the Jewish population of Israel. That status also grounds the legitimacy of Israel above and beyond the 1920's - 1940's League of Nations mandate and UN recognition, as a land of refuge in a context of an exchange of refugees. (The situation of Pakistan and India is a direct and concurrent parallel.) 8 --> So, the all too common attempt to sever modern Jewry and the modern state of Israel from historic Jewish roots and roots in the land of Israel, are ill-founded. 9 --> In that context, there is indeed a known and fairly widespread school of thought with significant and responsible study of the Scriptures behind it, that understands the prophetic scriptures of the Tanakh or Old Testament [substantially the same, just differently organised], to speak of a second exile and to speak of a return in the end of days culminating in the advent of Messiah. Which last is the reading of Zechariah 12 that I have highlighted above. 10 --> That is, the Christian Faith, cannot properly be broad-brush dismissed as antisemitic and the root of Jewish persecution. (Thus, I have answered the issue raised by LT.) 11 --> Now, in addition, I am aware of schools of thought that would take the prophetic texts and apply them instead to the Church, often described as "replacement theology" by Christian Zionists. And I am sure you are aware that such pre-millenial Christian theology advocates [onlookers, you may wish to look here on for a 101 level outline survey of that area of theology -- pay attention to the diagrams adapted from Wayne Grudem] often warn that any school of interpretation of scriptures that opens the door to alienation of the Jews from the covenantal promises of the Bible, is an invitation to anti-semitism. Though, it in itself may and one hopes usually is not antisemitic. 12 --> In response, I think the following remarks from Paul are worth noting, coming form the letter in which he lays out his theological differences with the Jewish leadership who have rejected the claims of Jesus to be messiah, as well as the unmistakable cry of his heart that hey come to know God in the face of Jesus through the gospel:
Rom 1: 1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations . . . . 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” . . . . 9: 1 I am speaking the truth in Christ-I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit- 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever . . . . 10: 1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved . . . . 11: 1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” 4 But what is God's reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace . . . . 11: 13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you . . . . 28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
13 --> This is a man who literally states that he would willingly forfeit his own blessed state were that enough to see to the eternal welfare of his kinsmen, and who openly characterises his converts from the gentiles as grafted in wild olive shoots. In that context he warns us gentiles to beware or arrogance and falling away from God. He concludes that while there is enmity to God and to his move at this point, it is driven by want of knowledge and it is in the context of an ultimate restoration of a remnant. (Which BTW is the precise view of the OT prophets, time and again, not just Elijah who he explicitly refers to.) 14 --> Yes, it is obviously possible to wrench some of this out of context to make anti-semitic claims, but that obviously falls under the warning given by the fellow apostle, Peter:
2 Peter 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
15 --> Scripture-twisting is an evil indulged at peril, even if driven by ignorant folly. Arrogance in such error is definitely a sign that does not speak well of one's spiritual health. And plainly, abuse of the NT (and OT) scriptures to foment hatred of Jews -- or for that matter, as Ac 17 so plainly implies, Arabs and any other nation -- is scripture-twisting. 16 --> So, even if one were to for a moment entertain that replacement theologies [yes, I know that I am using the Christian Zionist term not the self-identification] have validity, that would not justify hostility to or persecution of Jews (or any other ethnicity for that matter). 17 --> And, one has to reckon with the direct statement in Rom 11:29 that he gifts and calling of God are not taken back. Which means that while one may have a theological dispute as to whether the Zionist movement triggered resettlement of Israel has eschatological, scriptural significance, that is separate from any question that he Christian faith as a whole is hostile to Jews as such. Even someone as beset by out of control anger as Luther who said and wrote inexcusably intemperate things about Jews, cannot properly be viewed as characterising the Christian faith as a whole. Luther has some serious explaining to do, and probably would have been horrified as to the long term consequences of his intemperate and incendiary remarks, but his blunders are not to properly be seen as characterising the Christian faith from roots up. He was right on many things, but on this, he was utterly, inexcusably, wrong. And wrong in sadly obvious ways:
Eph 4: 25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. 26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and give no opportunity to the devil. 28 Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. 29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
In short, on both substance and tone, Luther was in gross error. We can only ask forgiveness that this was not sufficiently corrected in good time. KFkairosfocus
November 3, 2013
November
11
Nov
3
03
2013
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT
Mung, I've heard that before, and even some Jews agree. But I'm not sure what "so-called" referring to Jews means. Ashkenazi? Aren't they the ones that died in "so-called" concentration camps in WW2?Querius
November 2, 2013
November
11
Nov
2
02
2013
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
Hi Barry, Yes, I believe progressivism is neo-fascism. Fascism is fundamentally collective, elitist, and eventually totalitarian. It allows private ownership with state control. The ruling elite in any such regime believe that they've heroically achieved security, stability, and equitable distribution of goods and services. Thanks for the book suggestion.Querius
November 2, 2013
November
11
Nov
2
02
2013
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
Hitler himself commented on creationism vs evolution, too bad I can't find the quote again. He wrote that it confused him to learn one thing in religionclass, and then to learn something entirely different in biologyclass. Then he sai that it wasn't his position to comment on it, and that in either scenario there would have been a first of any specie, so that, obviously implying, both creationists and evolutionists should support the nazi's. Hitler's beliefs are extremely rationalistic, rationalizing everything in terms of a struggle too survive. He rationalized love in terms of self-preservation. All to Hitler was a matter of fact, including beauty, love and goodness. It is just a classic case of knowledge of good and evil, original sin. The only room for opinion in this rationalization was that you can believe anything if it seems to help the struggle for survival. Nordic gods, Jesus the Aryan fighter, anything that seems to help. So you have this calculating in terms of survival going on without any emotion, the only emotion is in the freedom to believe anything which helps the struggle. Darwin shares blame, because Darwin too inclined to rationalize everything in terms of survival, including love. Darwin did not leave any room for subjectivity in his views. Mayhem, slaughter, should be expected when emotions become to be excluded. Noticeably Darwin complained a lot of "dark thoughts" while writing his book on emotions.mohammadnursyamsu
November 2, 2013
November
11
Nov
2
02
2013
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
Querius @ 47: “Interesting article. I suspect that the support of evolution in Germany at that time was not that much different than in many other nations, the US included.” And your suspicions would be confirmed were you to investigate the matter. In his Liberal Fascism Jonah Goldberg does a masterful job of tracing the various threads in the totalitarian fabric that includes Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany, and Stalin’s Soviet Union and how the philosophical impulses behind each of those three threats to human freedom and dignity find their expression today in the “progressive” political movement. Barry Arrington
November 2, 2013
November
11
Nov
2
02
2013
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
The current existence of the State of Israel in Palestine populated by so-called Jews has nothing to do with the fulfillment of Bible prophecy.Mung
November 2, 2013
November
11
Nov
2
02
2013
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
goodusername at 11/01 7:03: Yes, Darwin acknowledged what agriculture had long known: Too much inbreeding leads to magnification of faults. Of course, the fault may be tolerated by humans if the desired traits remain, otherwise breeding back ("intercrossing") is a wise idea. Interestingly, less techologically developed peoples apparently knew this stuff quite well. Re the circumpolar Inuit peoples: "The neutering of all male dogs was an excepted practice, except for their best lead dogs for breeding purposes. The practice of neutering the majority of male dogs, made a family dog supply vulnerable though accident or death. In the event of an accident or death, a female dog on heat was left tied up to bred with by wolves. Only the most dog like of the litter was kept, as the wolf hybrids were considered very unpredictable. And the wolf coats did not repel the snow and were therefore unsuitable for working in the icy conditions, as ther snow would cling to their guard coat and turn to ice. The wolf hybrid would lick the ice off, this resulting in their guard coat falling out, and without their coat to protect them from the subzero temperatures they would soon die. mother nature made the decision, and overtime a certain dog prevailed." http://www.icepaws.com/history-of-the-malamute.aspNews
November 2, 2013
November
11
Nov
2
02
2013
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
@Mung:
We should not judge Hitler too harshly. It was all in his genes, after all.
Who should we judge? The intelligent designer of his genes?JWTruthInLove
November 2, 2013
November
11
Nov
2
02
2013
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
F/N to 42: I should note that a subtlety lies behind the Christian Zionist views on Zech ch 12. Namely, following Mt 24, there is a view of parallel gospel proclamation to the nations AND a rising tide of hostility to it. This tends to be seen in light of what we may summarise as hostility to the Judaeo-Christian tradition and a great falling away, even as the great global gospel missionary mandate is carried forward. This also points to pressure on Jews that pushes resettlement in the Jewish homeland, viewed as a place of refuge and protection. (NB: also prophesied in the OT, including reference to a second return from exile -- seen as vindicated from the 1870's on culminating at 1948 and '67.) So, the nations envisioned in Zech 12 as gathering against Judah and Jerusalem, on this view, are expressing that hostility through aggression on some flimsy excuse or other. And thereby finding themselves in (patently futile and foolish) enmity against God. Ezekiel 35 - 39 is especially relevant in that light. Enmity against God is not exactly a desirable position for Christians. KFkairosfocus
November 2, 2013
November
11
Nov
2
02
2013
12:10 AM
12
12
10
AM
PDT
Chs 5 - 7 of Descent of Man.kairosfocus
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
11:34 PM
11
11
34
PM
PDT
PS: It seems we need to remind on the sub-title of Origin: Origin of Species, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for existence. In that context, remarks on plant hybrids have but minor impact. Let us again note the shaping effect of Darwin's discussion of the Scots, Irish and English in Chs 5 - 7, with the chilling significance of the quote above. Like it or lump it, Darwin was among the first social darwinists. And it is no accident that eugenics was founded by Darwin's cousin Galton and thereafter strongly associated with Darwin's family for decades, being shaped on darwinist principles shaped by the hope that understanding the underlying laws of nature wise nations could control breeding along the lines of engineering, to achieve desired, channelled evolution.kairosfocus
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
Q: Pardon, but we must let the beast speak, from his own mouth, Mein Kampf, Bk 1 Ch 11:
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. KFkairosfocus
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT
We should not judge Hitler too harshly. It was all in his genes, after all.Mung
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
Interesting article. I suspect that the support of evolution in Germany at that time was not that much different than in many other nations, the US included. However, Adolph Hitler, being a consummate politician, included those aspects of Darwinism, anthropology, and eugenics that supported his agenda. According to my research, evolution in general was NOT a guiding principle of Nazi philosophy, but "genetic hygiene" appealed to Germans, as was the idea of a racial "manifest destiny." The perceived competition between the races meant that Germans had the ability and thus the moral obligation and right to succeed lesser-evolved races (allowing them to be displaced and to slowly die out in a humanitarian way), and they abhorred miscegenation as an impediment to this natural process. Hitler's antisemitism was generally viewed as a passing "children's disease" (immaturity), but it ran deep with Hitler and his cronies, who felt that Germany in the Great War was betrayed from within by the Jews, and directly resulted in the devastation of Germany afterwards, including the systematic starvation imposed by the Allied Powers after the armistice to punish Germany. Nazi racial scoring based on phrenology, and their human breeding programs underscored their obsession with race. Their alliance with Japan required some mental gymnastics that placed the Japanese at the head of the Asian races. All social institutions, including the Catholic and Lutheran churches were made subservient "partners" to the State. They were to provide their support, but the real "religion" of the Nazis was occult---blood and race. While I'm not a believer in Darwinism, I believe that blaming Darwinism for the rise of Nazi ideology is incorrect. Certainly aspects of Darwinism were incorporated, but the emphasis in this area of their ideology was on racial purity, selective breeding, eugenics, and racial superiority and destiny. This was the foundation for the German people. Their allies in this struggle for dominance included national socialism and organizing society through the leadership principle. Europe was considered a mess, a collection of "dirt states" that would easily be toppled by this powerful and irresistible new political movement.Querius
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply