Christians making a hell on earth for other people? Is that possible?

[Tom 1]

My opinion is if a born-again person voted for Adolph, the born-again person did not pray and make sure with God.

You have to remember that Hitler didn’t campaign on a ‘I am going to start a war and commit atrocities’ platform, his agenda was basically make Germany great again, with a fair bit of scapegoating thrown in.

 

[com7fy8]

You have to remember that Hitler didn’t campaign on a ‘I am going to start a war and commit atrocities’ platform, his agenda was basically make Germany great again, with a fair bit of scapegoating thrown in.

This is my impression. Thank you.

It can be the trick of slipping in a little bit of bribing stuff, about how we can have more money, basically, and at the same time be putting down certain people, even with general statements, instead of letting each one speak for oneself.

But we can see what a person does not do. Ones do not call for love and prayer and blessing for enemies, and Jesus does. So, we have or King . . . already . . . better than we can know is qualified!!!

And I myself need to not scapegoat anyone; so thank you for the reminder And certainly it is wrong to self-exaltingly put down even any other person. Therefore > if someone is obviously a bad example of how to relate, I need to support a candidate who is an example at least of civility, for children and younger voters. So, I personally understand I can not vote for either an anti-life candidate . . . but also not for an openly anti-love candidate.

It is obvious how Adolph's hate did not make Germany great. Plus, it is not making America great, by bringing in more or less concealed hate. But ones of different agendas of hate can serve to resist each other.

In the United States, we have an interesting situation, in which checks and balances can be helping to resist various people who can be acting in pride, so none of them can fully have their own way >

"God resists the proud," we have in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5.

 

[Tolworth John]

Then you should have represented it as such and not as "the atheist-hitler myth from the Richard Dawkins foundation".

The accepted standard of internet etiquette is that when reasonably requested for evidential support one supplies a direct link. A vague reference to "an atheist-myth", not to an article, fails completely to meet that standard.

The accepted standard on well run forums is that when reasonably requested for evidential support one supplies a direct link. A vague reference to "an atheist-myth", not to an article, fails completely to meet that standard.

I think a check on the rules of this forum will show that they require that when reasonably requested for evidential support one supplies a direct link. A vague reference to "an atheist-myth", not to an article, fails completely to meet that standard.

A genuine interest in supporting ones viewpoint would lead, automatically, to provision of a direct link. A vague reference to "an atheist-myth" strongly suggests you have no interest in supporting your assertion.

As a matter of common courtesy, when one is reasonably requested for evidential support for an assertion, one would provide a direct link. Do you want to try again? It would be appreciated. But please note - I am challenging your assertion that "it is a common claim by atheists . . etc." Unless the article details, with sound research, that such is a common claim, then it is worthless as evidence.

Read the article, and the comments.
They are a good representative of atheists views.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Read the article, and the comments.
They are a good representative of atheists views.

You seem to not understand @Ophiolite's request. He wants you to demonstrate that "they are a good representative of atheists views."

 

[Ophiolite]

Read the article, and the comments.
They are a good representative of atheists views.

Give me a link to the article. Was my post that unclear. I repeated multiple times that you had not provided a link. Did you not read it? Did you not understand it.

Secondly, the article is worthless as support for your assertion unless it demonstrates clearly and convincingly that most atheists think that way. (You seem to be confusing anecdote with evidence.)

 

[com7fy8]

clearly and convincingly that most atheists think that way.

I might not practice this like I should, but I do understand each atheist can speak for himself or herself. I can tend to overlook, by the way, how not only men are atheists.

Plus, if someone says "Christians helped and supported Hitler", and that someone says he or she is therefore an atheist . . . can you prove the person is really an atheist . . . and not >

trying to sharpen debating skills for a school debate team, by getting somebody on the Internet who is convinced of his or her beliefs, who will spar with the one claiming to be an atheist?

trying to get you to do his or her homework so he or she can use your presentation in a paper or something?

is just saying it out of spite of just not wanting Christianity?

Maybe, if I remember correctly, someone was giving me something like that "Christians helped Adolph; so God must not exist" thing. So, I said something like > "Therefore what? What have you been doing about your understanding that has really done you good?" And the person answered with something like, "I'm just having a bad day."

Others might claim they are living in a socially caring way and they are being honorable. But I understand from Jesus, that we need to not be exalting ourselves in comparison with wrong people. This can be self-righteous; I can do it all the time, by the way. So, I have my own homework to do, to learn how to love.

 

[Ophiolite]

I might not practice this like I should, but I do understand each atheist can speak for himself or herself. I can tend to overlook, by the way, how not only men are atheists.

Plus, if someone says "Christians helped and supported Hitler", and that someone says he or she is therefore an atheist . . . can you prove the person is really an atheist . . . and not >

trying to sharpen debating skills for a school debate team, by getting somebody on the Internet who is convinced of his or her beliefs, who will spar with the one claiming to be an atheist?

trying to get you to do his or her homework so he or she can use your presentation in a paper or something?

is just saying it out of spite of just not wanting Christianity?

Maybe, if I remember correctly, someone was giving me something like that "Christians helped Adolph; so God must not exist" thing. So, I said something like > "Therefore what? What have you been doing about your understanding that has really done you good?" And the person answered with something like, "I'm just having a bad day."

Others might claim they are living in a socially caring way and they are being honorable. But I understand from Jesus, that we need to not be exalting ourselves in comparison with wrong people. This can be self-righteous; I can do it all the time, by the way. So, I have my own homework to do, to learn how to love.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make. I understand the individual anecdotes/examples, just not what you are seeking to demonstrate, or argue, or relate.

 

[com7fy8]

I don't understand

I was just sharing a few things I'm thinking of.

I guess my basic offering is >

atheists don't all have the same ideas or reasons to be atheists. This was my main point.

Another item > polls could be getting claims from some number of people who say they are answering as atheists when they aren't.

So, I would say I do best to let each person speak for oneself, be ready to invest time and effort to actually get to know someone, but do not assume someone is saying what they really are feeling and thinking.

By the way . . . if someone gives me an answer that is showing up as a more general statement about an issue . . . has that person really evaluated it or has the person been cookie-cut by people who are trying to get numbers of voters to support some political cause? I listen for original stuff, with each person, even though someone being original can come to a conclusion which others have.

But people have motives and their character helping to produce their ideas; so I am interested in getting to know each person, as well as I can. If God exists and is really love, what does this mean about someone even insisting otherwise?

So, I guess another point is that statistics do not tell us much about each real person being polled. May be, then, ones trying to give us only theoretical and logical stuff are being lazy . . . giving rather impersonal stuff, mental stuff. Using the so-called logic approach can be more efficient to cookie-cut people to a cause so they can be votes, or so they can be used for personal motives without much more effort than talking.

We need to go by more than say-so. This is why I say make sure with God.

 

[Ophiolite]

I was just sharing a few things I'm thinking of.

I guess my basic offering is >

atheists don't all have the same ideas or reasons to be atheists. This was my main point.

Another item > polls could be getting claims from some number of people who say they are answering as atheists when they aren't.

So, I would say I do best to let each person speak for oneself, be ready to invest time and effort to actually get to know someone, but do not assume someone is saying what they really are feeling and thinking.

By the way . . . if someone gives me an answer that is showing up as a more general statement about an issue . . . has that person really evaluated it or has the person been cookie-cut by people who are trying to get numbers of voters to support some political cause? I listen for original stuff, with each person, even though someone being original can come to a conclusion which others have.

But people have motives and their character helping to produce their ideas; so I am interested in getting to know each person, as well as I can. If God exists and is really love, what does this mean about someone even insisting otherwise?

So, I guess another point is that statistics do not tell us much about each real person being polled. May be, then, ones trying to give us only theoretical and logical stuff are being lazy . . . giving rather impersonal stuff, mental stuff. Using the so-called logic approach can be more efficient to cookie-cut people to a cause so they can be votes, or so they can be used for personal motives without much more effort than talking.

We need to go by more than say-so. This is why I say make sure with God.

Thank you. That makes sense and I can integrate your thoughts in both posts. I certainly agree atheists hold diverse views, including how they have arrived at their atheism.

If God exists and is really love, what does this mean about someone even insisting otherwise?

A significant proportion of atheists, in my experience, are simply indifferent to the idea of a God. Another substantial number are firm in their doubt, but do not broadcast it. i.e. they are not insistent. Only an aggressive minority insist upon their atheism. Perhaps I have misinterpreted the sense in which you intended "insist". I have taken it to equate to actively and perhaps aggressively advertise their position, hence my remarks.

 

[thomas_t]

So perhaps then it isn't people being "Christians" that causes problems. Or are you saying Christians think that Christians can never do bad things and you are making the point; yes they can? Could your post be titled "People making a hell on earth for other people... and some of them are Christians"? Sorry just not sure what the point of your original post was.

My point wasn't that people being Christians causes the problems. I'm not a "fundamentalist" atheist apologist .
But I tend to think that Christians very well can do harm to people if they side with the wrong groups.
I opened the thread in answering a post in another thread that came across like saying true Christians could never persecute Jews.
Thomas

 

[com7fy8]

But I tend to think that Christians very well can do harm to people if they side with the wrong groups.
I opened the thread in answering a post in another thread that came across like saying true Christians could never persecute Jews.

I agree that Jesus people should not side with wrong groups. I think this is a basic of God's word.

And we do not persecute Jews . . . of course, I would say. Paul in Romans chapter ten, I trust, is very clear about this . . . and in chapter eleven.

Paul was a Jew. Jews got the Gospel started. We who have been Gentiles have been grafted in with the Jews who first obeyed the Gospel.

 

[durangodawood]

So what are we to make of the Christians who stopped Nazi Germany? Or of the Muslims and Sikhs and whomever else supported the Nazis?

Yes Christians took a good stance.

But the OP point is: dont ignore how vulnerable Christians can be to taking a very bad stance.

 

[durangodawood]

...It was traditional for troops on their way to Jerusalem during the crusades to make a stop somewhere along the way to slaughter a community of Jewish families, for 'killing Christ', as one example.

Is this for real? I had not heard this. Ugh.

 

[Tom 1]

Is this for real? I had not heard this. Ugh.

Unfortunately, yes. David Nirenberg’s book Anti-Judaism is a useful overview of attitudes towards Jewish people over the centuries, it gets pretty gruesome in parts.

 

[thomas_t]

But my information indicates that Adolph was openly speaking against the Jews in Germany and calling for them to be put down, at least.

I thought about your post for a while.
To my knowledge, Hitler did not disclose that he planned to kill the Jews. He was "only" antisemitic in what he said in more general terms.
But he was outspoken that once in power, he would start off wars against the enemies. See Mein Kampf - Wikipedia
And that's what the BEG people voted him for. They voted for him on purpose.
The above linked source reads like this:
"Man sehnte sich daher nach einer Wiedereingliederung Westpreußens in das Deutsche Reich und fand sich dabei besonders bei Hitler verstanden. "
In English:
"For this reason, they yearned for having Western Prussia [which was part of Poland by that time, added mine] back in the Reich and they had the impression that Hitler understood their cause."
And he did.
You compare the political attitude of that church to Peter having had to be corrected by Paul in Galatians 2.
Ok.
But I want to point out that it was for long years that this church supported the DNV, the German National People's Party - Wikipedia, a movement that primarily wanted to have the lost territory back. In 1933, they only went one step further supporting the NSDAP, Hitler's party.
So, their political stance wasn't just a minor glitch. In my opinion, even if there would have been a Paul available at that time to correct them, he would have needed much more than one single conversation to get his brothers back on track, I'm afraid. In case you say they were brothers indeed.
Thomas

 

[coffee4u]

So are you telling me that no Christians voted for Hilter? How is that?
Here is a document from the BEG, the biggest evangelical community within the protestant church in Germany.
They supported Hitler staunchly. https://www.eh-tabor.de/sites/default/files/wissenschaftliche_arbeiten/bruederhaus_tabor_ns_zeit.pdf
This document is from the school educating pastors for the BEG. (it's a German document, feel free to ask me for translation.)
Are you telling me that there wasn't even one Christian pertaining to that school and/or church?
They have a good teaching, they are conservative, anti-LGBT, anti-communist, hard-working, everything you would like probably. I used to visit a church of their's.

Thomas

Pretty useless posting German articles to an English speaking site.

The two main commands to Christians are to love God and love others.

First you would need to show if the extent of evil was known before the voting. Many people vote without much knowledge of who they are voting for except what their neighbour or family member says and they go along with it. or they hear something they like, perhaps a tax break and look no further while others vote for the same party each time, again without really looking.
If someone votes knowingly for someone who is that evil then they are not Christian.

 

[thomas_t]

Pretty useless posting German articles to an English speaking site.

it's just to back up what I say using checkable sources. I don't want to come across as fabricating my claims. To my knowledge, there is no accurate English source available covering the role of evangelical Christians in the third Reich and before.
If there was a comparable English source available, I would have taken this, believe me.

I think, Germans knew that Hitler wanted to broaden German territory - using military force. That's what he wrote in "Mein Kampf", his book, and frankly announced in 1932 according to this source here (again, I quote a German source because I want to give a source and don't know an English one)

In my opinion, it is somewhat similar to today's Germany selling weapons to dictatorships like Saudi Arabia*. Everyone knows what they think of human rights.
So it can't ba a surprise that German weapons appeared in armed conflicts like the Yemenite civil war. Again, I want to use a source to substanciate this claim just for the sake of providing a source to make claims properly. However, I couldn't find anything in English so it's https://www.dw.com/de/beweise-für-deutsche-waffen-im-jemen/a-47681315
Just to show that German weapons in Yemen is a trustworthy claim. German weapons in such a war means German weapons used for the sake of killing civilians.
This time, German authorities seem to have taken the issue of war lightly again, in full knowledge of the Saudi Arabian approach to human rights in general (which hardly doesn't exist, in my opinion).
German weapons in Turkey is quite the same dilemma, I think.

* But currently, German military exports worth € 1 billion to Saudi Arabia are frozen because of the Yemen crisis.
EDITED

 

[coffee4u]

it's just to back up what I say using checkable sources. I don't want to come across as fabricating my claims.

Since I don't understand a word it could possibly be an article about chicken herding or unicorns. *Joke* but you get what I mean. That isn't a checkable source to people who don't speak a word of German.

 

[thomas_t]

Since I don't understand a word it could possibly be an article about chicken herding or unicorns. *Joke* but you get what I mean. That isn't a checkable source to people who don't speak a word of German.

Often people don't provide any sources proclaiming things to be true. It's a German source, but someone who can speak German might check to see if I mistranslated. So it's at least some sort of documentation that can be provided here.
However, it is a problem posting sources in another languages, I hear you.
I only resort to German, because there is no proper analysis in English about German Christians at that time that I could find.

I think many Englich speaking brothers and sisters still think, that the most of German Christians stood strong and opposed Hitler. The opposite seems to be true if you take a look at German churches at that time. If I want to tackle what I would call a myth about Christians in Germany of back then... I need to provide German sources since there I don't find any accurate English ones.

While it is true that some indivduals like Dietrich Bonhoeffer spoke up... churches in their majority seem to have failed:
My source summarizes it like this: "Politisch stand [Krawelietzki] in den zwanziger Jahren wie die meisten Leiter aus dem konservativ-kirchlichen Spektrum der DNVP nahe"
which is "politically, he [the leader of that church] favored the DNVP [Hitlers later coalition partner that helped him assume power in 1933] in the 1920s, like most of the leaders from conservative christian churches did."
According to that source, most of the evangelical churches took a very bad stance. Unfortunately.

 

[durangodawood]

Army of fake Scotsmen have crossed the Rhine into this thread.