Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Young Stalin was a Darwin fan too, it seems

Spread the love

A friend noting our post re Michael Egnor’s thoughts on totalitarianism, sends this snippet:

When Stalin was a schoolboy, “he talked about books all the time. If he coveted a volume, he was happy to steal it from another schoolboy and run home with it.When he was about thirteen, Lado Ketskhoveli took him to a little bookshop in Gori where he paid a five kopeck subscription and borrowed a book that was probably Darwin’s Origin of Species. Stalin read it all night, forgetting to sleep, until Keke [his mother] found him.

‘Time to go to bed,’ she said. ‘Go to sleep–dawn is breaking.’

‘I loved the book so much, Mummy, I couldn’t stop reading.’ As his reading intensified, his piety wavered.

One day Soso [Stalin] and some friends, including Grisha Glurjidze, lay on the grass in town talking about the injustice of there being rich and poor when he amazed all of them by suddenly saying, ‘God’s not unjust, he doesn’t actually exist. We’ve been deceived. If God existed, he’d have made the world more just.’

‘Sodo, how can you say such things?’ exclaimed Grisha.

‘I’ll lend you a book and you’ll see.” He presented Glurjidze with a copy of Darwin.”

Simon Sebag Montefiore, “Young Stalin” (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007), p, 49.

Young Stalin at Amazon.

See also: Michael Egnor on the relationship between Darwinism
and totalitarianism Egnor: Philosopher Hannah Arendt is, in my view, the most perceptive analyst of totalitarianism. In her magnum opus, The Origins of Totalitarianism, she points out that Darwinism played an essential role in the rise of totalitarian governments in the 20th century.

14 Replies to “Young Stalin was a Darwin fan too, it seems

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    The degree to which Darwin actually influenced such people is debatable but irrelevant to the quality of his theory. If you try to argue that it does have a bearing on the science then you must concede that Christianity is irrevocably tainted by the vicious anti-Semitism of Martin Luther.

  2. 2
    AaronS1978 says:

    Nazi party, anti-Semitism, Darwinism

    During World War II went hand in hand

    6.5 million Jews died

    Multiple programs influenced by Darwinism like eugenics Were responsible

    So Martin Luther was an amateur to such atheistic superstars as Stalin and Mao
    Hitler Was a political whore and it is debated if he was even kind of Christian he very likely wasn’t and was using it to gain political power

    I’m sure you’re very educated on Hitler’s perspective and more than likely judging by your knowledge you immediately assume he’s a Christian and he’s definitely a Christian you’re gonna say he is just a Christian and atheism had nothing to do about it

    And I will simply say you were entirely wrong but that’s besides the point

    The point is The past century saw some of the worlds greatest monsters in all of history emerge backed with the infallible science of Darwinism and atheism

    If you don’t think that’s a fair assessment well I gave it about the same assessment you do when it comes to religion

  3. 3
    Querius says:

    AaronS1978,

    Here’s a nice quote that sums it up.

    “In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves,” wrote Alan Bullock “Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,” a seminal biography. “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest.”

    Naturally anything is debatable, but some assertions are very unlikely to win the debate. 😉

    -Q

  4. 4
    BobRyan says:

    Seversky:

    No matter what is taught to brainwash the masses, macro-evolution is not a valid scientific theory. For any hypothesis to become a theory, something must be witnessed and replicated. Neither has happened, which makes it a hypothesis, just as the multiverse is a hypothesis for the exact same reason. Science is not about fact, but about best explanation based on the evidence available and understanding that any theory can be disproved later.

    Macro-evolution has everything to do with the thugocracies that arose following Darwin’s Descent of Man. It was Darwin who wrote about the civilized races bringing about the extinction of the savage races. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Min, Kim, Pol Pot, etc., all ruled with the idea of the strong dominating the weak. It was, and is, might makes right.

    Darwin does not allow for charity, since that weakens the species as a whole. Darwin does not allow for the weak to be cared for by the strong, but to be crushed by the strong. From Nazi Germany to the killing fields of Cambodia, Darwin influenced them all. If there is no God, then there can be no moral right and wrong. Right is whatever the strong says they are.

    If we are nothing more than animals with no free will and no moral compass, then Hitler could not have been wrong, anymore than Stalin was wrong. It is only if you accept a moral compass unique to man that you can judge anything they did.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Immediately prior to the clipped portion in the OP, it is mentioned in the link that Stalin was at a church school where, prior to reading Darwin’s book, “Origin of Species”, Stalin was said to be ‘the finest choirboy’ and who also “saw the priesthood as his vocation to help the poor.”

    A Hanging in Gori
    Excerpt: While still the finest choirboy at the church school, Stalin started to show an interest in the plight of the poor and to doubt his faith. He became close friends with three priests’ sons—the brothers Lado and Vano Ketskhoveli, who were to play a vital role in his future life, and Mikheil Davitashvili,* who, like Stalin, walked with a limp. The elder Ketskhoveli brother, Lado, soon entered the Tiflis Seminary and brought back news of how he had led a protest and strike that led to his being sent down. Stalin was inspired by these new friends and their books, but he still saw the priesthood as his vocation to help the poor. Now, however, he aspired to politics for the first time. Under Lado Ketskhoveli’s charismatic influence, he declared he wanted to be a local administrator with the power to improve conditions.
    https://erenow.net/biographies/youngstalin/9.php

    Stalin’s love for the priesthood and the church apparently turned into a psychopathic hatred. Stalin, as dictator, tried his damndest to completely eradicate Christianity from Russia.

    Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union
    Excerpt: From 1932 to 1937 Joseph Stalin declared the ‘five-year plans of atheism’ and the LMG (League of the Militant Godless) was charged with completely eliminating all religious expression in the country.[69],,,,
    During the purges of 1937 and 1938, church documents record that 168,300 Russian Orthodox clergy were arrested. Of these, 106,300 were shot.[74] Many thousands of victims of persecution became recognized in a special canon of saints known as the “new martyrs and confessors of Russia”.,,,
    ,,, the anti-religious campaign of the past decade and the terror tactics of the militantly atheist regime, had effectively eliminated all public expressions of religion and communal gatherings of believers outside of the walls of the few churches that still held services.[76] This was accomplished in a country that only a few decades earlier had had a deeply Christian public life and culture that had developed for almost a thousand years.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union#Anti-religious_campaign_1928–1941

    It is also interesting to note that the Soviet Union is estimated to have killed many more of its OWN PEOPLE than it lost in all of World War II ! The Soviet Union was estimated to have lost 16,825,000 people during WWII.

    16,825,000 people
    In terms of total numbers, the Soviet Union bore an incredible brunt of casualties during WWII. An estimated 16,825,000 people died in the war, over 15% of its population.
    https://www.businessinsider.com/percentage-of-countries-who-died-during-wwii-2014-5

    Whereas on the other hand, ‘purges’ of their OWN PEOPLE resulted in the loss of at least 61 million people in the Soviet Union.

    (4) 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

    Such horror visited upon the Soviet people is simply beyond comprehension.

    Apparently Stalin took his psychopathic hatred towards God to his death bed.

    Joseph Stalin – Clenched His Fist Toward God
    Svetlana Stalin, the daughter of Josef Stalin tells how her father lay dying, plagued with terrifying hallucinations, he suddenly sat halfway up in bed, clenched his fist toward the heavens once more, fell back upon his pillow, and was dead. The incredible irony of his whole life is that at one time Josef Stalin had been a seminary student, preparing for the ministry.,,,
    https://www.family-times.net/illustration/Rebellion/201630/

    It is also interesting to note just how miserably Stalin failed in his endeavor to eradicate Christianity from Russia. Just a few decades after the fall of the Soviet Empire, “Today, 71 percent of Russians identify as Orthodox.”

    Pew: Here’s How Badly Soviet Atheism Failed in Europe
    In 18 nations across Central and Eastern Europe, religion is now essential to national identity. (massive study based on face-to-face interviews with 25,000 adults in 18 countries}
    Jeremy Weber – 5/10/2017
    Excerpt: “The comeback of religion in a region once dominated by atheist regimes is striking,” states Pew in its latest report. Today, only 14 percent of the region’s population identify as atheists, agnostics, or “nones.” By comparison, 57 percent identify as Orthodox, and another 18 percent as Catholics.
    http://www.christianitytoday.c.....ntity.html
    http://www.christianitytoday.c.....#038;w=380

    Russia’s Journey from Orthodoxy to Atheism, and Back Again
    By Gene Zubovich | October 16, 2018
    Excerpt: In Russia, there is a religious revival happening. Orthodox Christianity is thriving after enduring a 70-year period of atheistic Soviet rule. In 1991, just after the collapse of the USSR, about two-thirds of Russians claimed no religious affiliation. Today, 71 percent of Russians identify as Orthodox.
    https://religionandpolitics.org/2018/10/16/russias-journey-from-orthodoxy-to-atheism-and-back-again/

    Whatever justice in hell that Stalin now endures, his failed war against Christianity must be among his most unbearable torments of all.

    Hebrews 2:2-3
    For if the message spoken by angels was binding, and every transgression and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? This salvation was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Of supplemental note, “The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century.”,,,

    “More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.
    Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.
    What is more, the events of the Russian Revolution can only be understood now, at the end of the century, against the background of what has since occurred in the rest of the world. What emerges here is a process of universal significance. And if I were called upon to identify briefly the principal trait of the entire twentieth century, here too, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than to repeat once again: Men have forgotten God.
    The failings of human consciousness, deprived of its divine dimension, have been a determining factor in all the major crimes of this century.”,,,
    Aleksander Solzhenitsyn – “Men Have Forgotten God” – The Templeon Address – 1983
    http://www.roca.org/OA/36/36h.htm

  7. 7
    BobRyan says:

    Bornagain

    There were roughly 40,000,000 who disappeared under Stalin’s reign throughout the Soviet Union. Among those were Americans who were convinced to go to the USSR who ended up giving up the American citizenship. Not one of those former Americans have ever been found. The total dead is closer to 100,000,000, which makes him the biggest mass murdered in the history of the world.

  8. 8
    BrunoAr says:

    My dad actually has a portrait carved in wood of Stalin in our summerhouse. It was too heavy to hang so hes just standing near the dinner table.

  9. 9
    Querius says:

    BobRyan,
    I think the 100 million estimate for Stalin is too high. It’s estimated that about 85 million died directly or indirectly in WW2. According to the Wall Street Journal, the total death toll from Communist purges is about 100 million:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/100-years-of-communismand-100-million-dead-1510011810

    For Stalin, published estimates of the people who died in his purges range from 680,00-1.2 million (Wikipedia) to 20 million (a post-Soviet Russian paper) to other estimates as high as 40 million.

    As for Mao Zedong, estimates go much higher, perhaps 65 million. I found this interesting quote regarding what Mao considered a “major accomplishment” of the Cultural Revolution in 1966-1976. He wanted to get rid of what he considered his number one enemy, the intellectual:

    “What’s so unusual about Emperor Shih Huang of the China Dynasty? He had buried alive 460 scholars only, but we have buried alive 46,000 scholars.”

    BrunoAr, you might want to keep the Stalin wood carving safe. It might come in handy the future as a shield! 😉

    -Q

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    At post 1 Seversky states,

    The degree to which Darwin actually influenced such people is debatable but irrelevant to the quality of his theory.,,,

    Actually, contrary to what Seversky thinks, and as I pointed out in this series of posts the other day,,,,
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831
    ,,, the degree to which Darwin influenced Marxist/Socialist ideology is not debatable. Darwin’s theory was very much a crucial plank upon which that murderous ideology was based. To repeat, Karl Marx himself stated that, “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”

    Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010
    Excerpt: Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx –
    “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.”
    Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 –
    “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”
    The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote –
    “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”
    Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote –
    “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?”
    To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin.
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-on-marx/

    Furthermore,

    Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin’s Latest Biographer — and a Pretty Devastating One – David Klinghoffer – October 14, 2012
    Excerpt: “Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief,” were students of Darwin, ,,,
    Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection “to its logical conclusion.” “Leading Communists,” moreover, “from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung” considered evolution “essential to the self-respect of Communists. … Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power.”
    Even Stalin,, “had Darwin’s ‘struggle’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ in mind” when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,,
    ,,the “emotional stew” Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century’s genocides.,,,
    No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin “for millions of deaths.” But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin’s theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences — well, that’s obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein).
    There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65281.html

    Thus Darwin’s theory did indeed play a crucial role in the formation of Marxist/Socialist ideology and the subsequent horror that followed that atheistic ideology. The only people who would even dare try to say that this fact of history is ‘debatable’ are people who a determined to believe Darwin’s theory to be true no matter what horrid consequences may result, and have resulted, from it.

    Furthermore, and again directly contrary to what Seversky believes, morality is very much relevant to “the quality of (Darwin’s) theory.”

    As I further pointed out the other day on that other thread, Charles Darwin made several anti-altruistic and/or anti-morality statements in his book “Origin of Species”,

    “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species – page 266

    “Natural selection will never produce in a being anything injurious to itself, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor.”
    – Charles Darwin – page 201

    “On the other hand, we may feel sure that any (biological) variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.”
    – Charles Darwin – page 81

    “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – page 241

    Thus as Charles Darwin himself made clear in his own words, morally noble altruistic behavior of any type is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s ‘let the strongest live and the weakest die’ theory. And as I further pointed out in that series of posts the other day, each of those ‘scientific predictions’ by Charles Darwin has now been falsified by advances in science. In short, extremely sophisticated altruistic behavior, contrary to what Darwin predicted, is found to be rampant within molecular biology.

    Thus directly contrary to what Seversky wants to believe, morality and/or altruistic behavior is very much relevant to the ‘quality of his theory’. And Darwin’s theory is once again found, as far as the science itself is concerned, to fall way short of the mark.

    At post 1 Seversky goes on to further remark,

    If you try to argue that it, (i.e. the ANTI-morality of Darwinism), does have a bearing on the science then you must concede that Christianity is irrevocably tainted by the vicious anti-Semitism of Martin Luther.

    HUH???

    First off, as AaronS1978 pointed out in post 2, “Martin Luther was a (rank) amateur to such atheistic superstars as Stalin and Mao”. Secondly, without Christianity, Seversky simply has no objective moral basis in which to argue that the antisemitic writings of Martin Luther were inherently evil.

    Seversky’s atheistic/materialistic worldview is a world of “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

    “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
    – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life – (1996), p. 133.

    Apparently Seversky sees no problem freeloading off the objective morality of Christianity in order to try to argue that Martin Luther was as evil as Stalin was.

    Shoot, forget Martin Luther, I’ve seen Seversky, much like Richard Dawkins has done, become a ‘raging moralist’ when it comes to God Himself. Seversky could have easily written this following statement by Richard Dawkins

    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
    – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

    The irresolvable dilemma for Dawkins, (and Seversky), in their tirades against God is, once again, without God they have forsaken any objective moral basis in which they might be able to differentiate evil from good in the first place. Again, their worldview simply denies that good and evil even exists.

    The moral argument for God is summed up at the 4:36 minute mark of the following video and can be stated as such:
    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
    The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video
    https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

    Thus, for Dawkins and Seversky to try to claim that God is evil is for them to try to claim that an objective moral standard exists to judge God by. Yet that claim in and of itself defeats their atheistic worldview since their worldview denies the existence of good and evil in the first place. i.e. Without God, there simply is no good and evil, only a variety of subjective opinions with, morally speaking, no way to tell up from down.

    Seversky, and Dawkins, have cut off their nose to spite their face and have made a blatantly self-refuting argument in regards to morality and God.

    Of supplemental note: As to the Atheist’s oft repeated, and blatantly false, claim that Hitler was a Christian:

    Religious views of Adolf Hitler
    Excerpt: Laurence Rees concludes that “Hitler’s relationship in public to Christianity – indeed his relationship to religion in general – was opportunistic. There is no evidence that Hitler himself, in his personal life, ever expressed any individual belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church”.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....olf_Hitler

    Was Hitler a Christian? Reasons to Disbelieve
    In fact, Hitler contemptuously called Christianity a poison and a bacillus and openly mocked its teachings. In a long diatribe ridiculing many core Christian teachings, Hitler told his colleagues that the Christian concept of heaven was insipid and undesirable. After scoffing at doctrines such as the Fall, the Virgin Birth, and redemption through the death of Jesus, Hitler stated, “Christianity is the most insane thing that a human brain in its delusion has ever brought forth, a mockery of everything divine.” He followed this up with a hard right jab to any believing Catholic, claiming that a “Negro with his fetish” is far superior to someone who believes in transubstantiation.
    Hitler, in his own twisted mind, believed black Africans were subhumans intellectually closer to apes than to Europeans, so to him, this was a spectacular insult to Catholics. In February 1942, Hitler again scoffed at the basic teachings of Christianity, sarcastically relating the story of humanity from a Christian standpoint. He implied that God was responsible for original sin and commented that God’s method of redemption by sending his Son was a “murderous subterfuge.” Then, according to Hitler, when others did not accept these strange teachings, the church tortured them into submission. In the course of this anti-Christian diatribe, Hitler called the Catholic Church a form of idolatry and “Satanic superstition.”
    Another theme that surfaced frequently in Hitler’s monologues of 1941–42 was that the sneaky first-century rabbi Paul was responsible for repackaging the Jewish worldview in the guise of Christianity, thereby causing the downfall of the Roman Empire. In December 1941, Hitler stated that although Christ was an Aryan, “Paul used his teachings to mobilize the underworld and organize a proto-Bolshevism. With its emergence the beautiful clarity of the ancient world was lost.” In fact, since Christianity was tainted from the very start, Hitler sometimes referred to it as “Jew-Christianity.” While Hitler often associated Jesus with Aryan traits and socialism, he consistently lambasted Christianity as Jewish and communist. He denigrated the “Jew-Christians” of the fourth century for destroying Roman temples and even called the destruction of the Alexandrian library a “JewishChristian deed.” Hitler thus construed the contest between Christianity and the ancient pagan world as part of the racial struggle between Jews and Aryans.
    In the end, the evidence is preponderant against Hitler embracing any form of Christianity for most of his adult life. Was Hitler a Christian? No.
    Even though he tried to palm himself off as a Christian when it served his political purposes, none of his friends and comrades considered him one. Even though he never officially left the Catholic Church, Schroeder claimed he promised to withdraw from the church immediately after the war to symbolize the dawn of a new historical era.125 All of Hitler’s close associates agreed with Schroeder, testifying that he was antagonistic toward Christianity. He admired the whip-wielding Jesus, whom he considered a fellow Aryan warrior fighting against the allegedly infernal Jews, but he had utter contempt for the Jesus who told His followers to love their enemies and turn the other cheek.
    He also did not believe that Jesus’s death had any significance other than showing the perfidy of the Jews, nor did he believe in Jesus’s resurrection. In private conversations and monologues he railed at Christianity because it had followed the lead of that insidious Jewish rabbi Paul. Despite Hitler’s disingenuous public statements, and despite his esteem for (his anti-Semitic version of) Jesus, it is abundantly clear that Hitler did not consider himself a Christian.
    https://www.historyonthenet.com/was-hitler-a-christian

    The claim that Hitler was a Christian is simply ludicrous. As I once asked an atheist on UD who once tried to claim that Hitler was a Christian, ‘So do you think that the concentration camps that Hitler built to exterminate the Jews were really just his Christian attempt to help the poor and needy?”

    Verse:

    Matthew 7
    15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

  11. 11
    EDTA says:

    >”… irrevocably tainted by…”

    If we agree things are tainted, then we should at least proportion the taint to the chronological and cultural closeness of the tainting. Crusades? Martin Luther’s prejudices? OK. But weight atheism/Communism/totalitarianism/etc. by their relative closeness in time and culture. Threats come from things that are still close at hand.

    Furthermore, with Christianity, you have the ideal, and then you have human beings screwing it up. The taint can adhere to the human beings all you want, but that doesn’t necessarily taint the ideal. That’s what you see others here trying to explain: We readily repudiate Luther’s anti-semitism for instance. But you didn’t go around repudiating old Brother Stalin; that would get you killed.

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    Sev, you have already been corrected that Luther is 1500 years too late to be a founder of the Christian faith. He was a reformer and as we all are he was deeply flawed. We must learn from his good and his errors, the latter to avoid. Beyond that, we smell the whiff of irretrievably self-refuting deconstructionism, and dismiss it. If we cannot learn from errors, find reconciliation, forgiveness and reform, we are doomed. Likewise if we are led to imagine that one error or perceived error irretrievably taints so the whole can be swept away, that too is folly. History is there to be learned from and errors and wrongs do not refute truths and rights. KF

  13. 13
    BobRyan says:

    Judaeo-Christian and Christian, with or without the root, accept that all are flawed. Darwinists believe if enough people are killed off, a perfect person can arise. One cannot have a utopian society built for imperfect people. They demand perfection from those who have influenced society in a positive way, but ignore or minimize the imperfections of those who have brought about their own worldview.

  14. 14
    OldArmy94 says:

    In the same way that Darwin made it possible for Dawkins to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist,” Darwin also made it possible for Hitler et al to be self-satisfied mass murderers.

Leave a Reply