"Love Your Enemies.or Take the Shot": What would've been just action in Hitler's era?

Gxg (G²) · Feb 23, 2012

Shalom

Concerning why I was writing this due to how I was recently blessed in being able to watch a video through one of the ministries I work with. The video was by a man known as Ray Comfort, a Jewish evangelist who has done much within the Kingdom of God to impact others for the Lord. The name of the video he did is entitled "180"---specifically on the subject of abortion and how others are to respond to it.

"180" Movie - YouTube

Although there are things I disagreed with the man on, I greatly appreciated many of the points he chose to bring up in regards to how believers should respond when it comes to what's essentially genocide (with abortion)--and I appreciated his bringing up the example of Hitler and how many allowed Hitler to come to power/had no issue with his actions.....and yet, for people saying they're against what he did, they would not have a problem with aborting babies.

One of the main points that stood out to me was when Comfort began asking questions such as "Would you assassinate Hitler if you had the chance?"...and if others said "Yes", he followed up by asking others if they'd be willing to assasinate the mother of Hitler when she was pregnant with him. Although he was using that as a spring-board to the larger issue of killing babies in the womb, it was interesting to consider the question by itself since many said "Yes" to the killing Hitler's mother---and as shocking as that was, it was interesting to see how there was a bit of a Biblical parallel.

The festival of Purim is coming up and I've been eagerly looking forward to celebrating as I've done yearly for a good bit with my Messianic fellowship. And in going through the story recently, some things stood out to me. Obvious is the fact that the main enemy in the story--Haman--was one who sought to destory the Jews....and yet the Lord sovereignly worked to protect the Jewish people. The Lord intervened by controlling the lot in such a way as to give a year's worth of time for Esther to intervene...and the Lord happened to have the lot during the time of Passover (the Month of Nisan, Esther 3:6-8 ). Haman himself was an Agagite ( Esther 3:1-3, Esther 9:23-25 , etc )--and being an Agagite meant that one was a descendant of King Agag....the King of the Amalekites who Saul initially sparred rather than destroy (I Samuel 15/ 1 Samuel 15 /1 Samuel 28:17-19 ). This is important because the Amalekites were the ethnic enemy of the Jewish people...a people the Lord swore to be at war with for generations and wipe out ( Exodus 17:15-16, Deuteronomy 25:17-24, Num. 24:7) --and ones who were essentially related by blood to the Israelites since Amalek came from Esau's line ( Genesis 36:11-13 , Genesis 36:15-17 ). Although Saul was noted to have defeated them ( 1 Samuel 14 /1 Samuel 14:47-49 ), he disobeyed the Lord's command to destroy them ( 1 Samuel 15:1-3 ).

Some wonder how Haman could be a descendent of King Agag when it seems the text of scripture says that Saul killed all of the Amalekite people and King Agag had been destroyed. But Samuel did indeed write that all the Amalekites had been killed. He must have been referring to all the Amalekites who had remained in their villages because 1 Chron 4:43 says that in the days of King Hezikiah, about 300 years later, 500 men from the tribe of Simeon killed the rest of the Amalekites , who had apparently escaped before Saul could get to them. This helps explain why God was so angry with Saul, and also how Haman could have been a descendant of King Agag.

Saul's allowance ensured that a descendant of the Amalekites survived.....enabling a genocide to be set up many centuries later. For Haman's anger was not only toward Mordecai, but to all Jewish people because of the bad blood that had occurred between the two groups for ages. Just as Saul was a Benjamite ( 1 Samuel 9 ) facing Amalek, so Mordecai was one as well ( Esther 2:4-6 ) facing a descendant of Amalek---paralleing a centuries old drama. The Lord thankfully intervened to stop Haman from carrying out his genocide---and where many seem perplexed is wondering if it was perhaps FATE for things to go down like they did in Esther.....or perhaps if it was a matter of chance playing out...with the Lord (in His providence) having to come into the situation/"sewn up loose ends" that should have been dealt with ages ago. T

The seemingly insignificant decisions you make day by day can affect generations after you....and on the subject of abortion, the reason the 180 video seemed to tie in is because many have wrestled over just how far they'd be willing to go to say prevent future attrocities from occurring. In the event of Hitler---just as it was with Saul's actions leading to a Haman---what should have been done in order to prevent someone like Hitler from doing as he did?

There were many who were condemned for plotting against Hitler when he began to come to power, especially in regards to others feeling as if violence was not allowed to occur amongst believers based on what Christ commanded with loving one's enemies. Others have discussed more in-depth on the subject as well. In example, one individual known as Shane Claiborne spoke on theology and war...and if seeing the following video from 02:13, Claiborne begins speaking about German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffers role in the attempt to assassinate Hitler:

The Effect of a 'Just War' - Shane Claiborne

As Claiborne says:

I think even Bonhoeffer was wrong. Theres an interview with Hitlers secretary in a movie called Blind Spot, and she tells about when the assassination attempt failed, and Hitler was very interestingly protected from the bomb, he was convinced at that point, more than ever before, that God was protecting him and his mission, and he went forward with renewed vigilence like ever before. So I would say on the day that Bonhoeffer did that, the cross lost, and that violence just perpetuated.

According to Claiborne, when Bonhoeffer tried to assassinate Hitler the cross lost. Claiborne later denounced Hitlers genocide of Jews as really really terrible theology and a skewed theology .....but it seemed odd to many for one not to say it was bad theology to allow someone to come to power like Hitler and have his way. And I do wrestle on the subject.

At what point is it either permissible to take a life...or to spare one for the Glory of the Lord?

There are literally others within the Jewish world that feel that trying to come against Hitler was the equivalent of attacking one appointed by the Lord...and in example, one can consider the Lubavitcher Rebbes comparison of Hitler with Gods servant Nebuchadnezzer ( 2 Kings 24:1-3, 2 Kings 25, Ezra 5:11-13, Jeremiah 21:6-8 , Jeremiah 25:8-10 , Jeremiah 27:7-9 , Jeremiah 29 , Jeremiah 43:9-11, Ezekiel 29:18-20 Daniel 1-4 ) . As Haretz noted:

God as surgeon
By Yehuda Bauer
The panel discussion on "Haredim and the Holocaust" recently aired on Channel 1 should have included the views of the Lubavitcher Rebbe (Chabad's so-called "King Messiah"), Rabbi Menachem Schneerson.

On the subject of the Holocaust, the Rebbe wrote as follows: "It is clear that 'no evil descends from Above,' and buried within torment and suffering is a core of exalted spiritual good. Not all human beings are able to perceive it, but it is very much there. So it is not impossible for the physical destruction of the Holocaust to be spiritually beneficial. On the contrary, it is quite possible that physical affliction is good for the spirit" ("Mada Ve'emuna," Machon Lubavitch, 1980, Kfar Chabad).

Schneerson goes on to compare God to a surgeon who amputates a patient's limb in order to save his life. The limb "is incurably diseased ... The Holy One Blessed Be He, like the professor-surgeon...seeks the good of Israel, and indeed, all He does is done for the good.... In the spiritual sense, no harm was done, because the everlasting spirit of the Jewish people was not destroyed."

The Rebbe's stance, therefore, is clear: The Holocaust was a good thing because it lopped off a disease-ravaged limb of the Jewish people - in other words, the millions who perished in the Holocaust - in order to cleanse the Jewish people of its sins.

There is logic in this theology: If God is indeed omnipotent, knows everything and controls the world ("God presides over the trials of 4 billion people all day long, every day without a moment's rest"), which implies divine supervision on an individual and collective basis, then the Holocaust took place not only with his knowledge, but also with his approval.

Was surprised (to say the least) that others within Judaism felt that way on a man like Hitler....but there were others from that era who felt the same. Others feel that Hitler was in the position he was like Nebuchadnezzar and that others should respond like Daniel did by simply intercedding for the king/nation and living one's life in peace---much like the early believers did when it came to them saying prayers should be offered for leaders, including those who were cruel (I Peter 2, Titus 3, I Timothy 2:1-7, etc). Others felt that Hitler was given power by God's command---and that his actions were necessary for the creation of the Israeli state. Others felt that people should be apolitical and simply keep to themselves rather than try to stir anything up.

And then you have other that were willing to take the man out like Deitrick Bonheffer--much like the Zealots felt in regards to holiness being expressed even in the willingness to take life.

I wonder where others should stand today....and if it came down to taking life, if it'd be right to consider doing so. It has been a blessing talking with others on the subject, some Messianic Jewish and others who are Non-Jewish, especially as it concerns looking back on horrible moments in history and wondering how to best interpret them or see what should have been the right course of action ...and if anyone here would like to share, would love to hear

Gxg (G²) · Feb 23, 2012

Easy G (G²);59872580 said:
There were many who were condemned for plotting against Hitler when he began to come to power, especially in regards to others feeling as if violence was not allowed to occur amongst believers based on what Christ commanded with loving one's enemies. Others have discussed more in-depth on the subject as well. In example, one individual known as Shane Claiborne spoke on theology and war...and if seeing the following video from 02:13, Claiborne begins speaking about German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffers role in the attempt to assassinate Hitler:

The Effect of a 'Just War' - Shane Claiborne

As Claiborne says:
According to Claiborne, when Bonhoeffer tried to assassinate Hitler the cross lost. Claiborne later denounced Hitlers genocide of Jews as really really terrible theology and a skewed theology .....but it seemed odd to many for one not to say it was bad theology to allow someone to come to power like Hitler and have his way. And I do wrestle on the subject.

At what point is it either permissible to take a life...or to spare one for the Glory of the Lord?

On the subject of Bonhoeffer, I think people like Brother Deitrick Bonheffer stand out, seeing their progression of thought. And for others who may be unaware, I'd highly suggest reading the Biography of Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas. Very eye-opening to see how even most of the Reformed churches of Germany were duped into electing, supporting and endorsing Adolf Hitler, to their own discredit and demise. Only a handful of Reformed deviants called "the Confessing Church" (of which Bonhoeffer was a part) stood against Hitler and his anti-semitism.

Initially, Detrick Bonheffer noted that true revival may end up coming from believers choosing to live on the margins. In a letter to his brother Karl-Friedrich, Detrick once gave a calling for a counter-cultural movement against the Third Reich which was becoming increasingly more influential within the German Church. As Bonhoeffer said:

_________________________________________________

It may be that in many things I seem to you to be somewhat fanatical and crazy. I myself sometimes have anxiety about this. But I know that, if I were more reasonable, for the sake of honor, I should have to, the next day, give up all my theology. When I first began theology, I imagined it to be somewhat different perhaps more like an academic affair. Now it has become something completely different from that. And I now believe I know at last that I am at least on the right track for the first time in my life. And that often makes me very glad. I continue to fear only that I might no longer appreciate the genuine anxiety for meaning of other people, but remain set in my ways. I believe I know that inwardly I shall be really clear and honest only when I have begun to take seriously the Sermon on the Mount. Here is set the only source of power capable of exploding the whole enchantment and specter [Hitler and his rule] so that only a few burnt-out fragments are left remaining from the fireworks. The restoration of the church will surely come form a sort of new monasticism which has in common with the old only the uncompromising attitude of a life lived according to the Sermon on the Mount in the following of Christ. I believe it is now time to call people to this.

I still cant ever believe that you really consider all these thoughts to be so completely insane. At present there are still some things for which an uncompromising stand is worthwhile. And it seems to me that peace and social justice or Christ himself are such.

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, from a letter to Karl-Friedrich Bonhoeffer in A Testment to Freedom (p. 424)_____________________________________________________

"The expansion of Christianity and the increasing secularization of the church caused the awareness of costly grace to be gradually lost. But the Roman church did keep a remnant of that original awareness. It was decisive that monasticism did not separate from the church and that the church had the good sense to tolerate monasticism. Here, on the boundary of the church, was the place where the awareness that grace is costly and that grace includes discipleship was preserved. Monastic life thus became a living protest against the secularization of Christianity, against the cheapening of grace.

-Dietrich Bonhoeffer (The Cost of Discipleship, p.46)

__________________________________________

Click to expand...

Bonhoeffer wrote this letter during the compilation of his book, The Cost of Discipleship.... On reflection of this book, Eberhard Bethge stated, "Bonhoeffer was calling for a church that needed to take a stand, no longer being fought with words, but with Renewal and a transformed lifestyle were necessary.

For more:

---"What did Bonhoeffer See?" ( )
[*]---"Bonhoeffer on Truth and Politics" ( )

It is interesting to see what Bonhoeffer said about Hitler, for as mentioned earlier, he was actually apart of the groups who planned to assasinate Hitler at one point--and was later executed for it, even though Bonhoeffer was one who felt that believers should be outside of the system. The biography done by Eric Metaxas is interesting since Eric presents arguments in his biography of Bonhoeffer that seem to present him as being against the concept of voting for bad leaders and resisting being duped.....and yet he was also opposing military service in Nazi Germany not on grounds of Christian pacifism, but on grounds that it did not meet the criteria of just war.

Additionally, Metaxas presents a strong allegation based on a comment attributed to Bonhoeffer in late September 1941 after he returned to Germany from Switzerland while serving the Abwehr. At the Dohnanyis house that September, Bonhoeffer famously said that, if necessary, he would be willing to kill Hitler. It would not come to that, but Bonhoeffer had to be clear that he was not assisting in the fulfillment of a deed he was unwilling to do. [Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy; (Thomas Nelson, 2010), p.388 "Operation 7"]

For reference:

---"Dietrich Bonhoeffer: reality and resistance" (

The ultimate ethical question for Bonhoeffer became how far does the Christian disciple go in his or her opposition to evil? If Metaxas is correct, Bonhoeffer recognizes circumstances in which violent resistance, even assassination, can be justified. This does not prove that Bonhoeffer admits just war patriotism as a key element in his understanding of Christian discipleship, but it does prove that he is not a pacifist .....and with the entire dynamic of submitting to government, one must wonder what that may say about believers today.

If anyone here within the Messianic community would happen to have any thoughts on the matter, would love to hear. In your view, would it be best for believers to have a "hands off" approach with what's occurring in the political world? And how far would you have gone if you were in the shoes of other believers that lived during the era of Hitler? How would you have responded? And how should others respond when they're in similar situations?

Should believers choose to stand against society/simply live proclaiming the Gospel while not being concerned with how government goes since it's not our kingdom? Should believers simply pray for the leadership of the nation like Daniel in Babylon or Joseph in Egypt and be content? Or..if things hit the fan, should believers choose to resist like Bonhoeffer did, regardless of where it may lead them?

And if you had to take a life, would you do it?

Gxg (G²) · Feb 23, 2012

For anyone who may wish to share on the thread, it is probable that certain aspects of the discussion may go in the route of discussing whether it's more biblical to support pacifism...or militarism--both of which I've tried to share more in-depth here or here (in regards to some of the things I've learned during my time in what's known as the MJish movement). If others choose to get involved, I'd ask that folks be gracious toward one another...for it does seem that whenever topics like Hitler/debates on how others SHOULD have responded come up, it can get intense since people are passionate on all sides

Gxg (G²) · Feb 23, 2012

God is faithful...

Partaker of Christ · Feb 23, 2012

Just a quick reply and I hope to get back later.

In the flesh, I would want to take the militarism stand, but I believe that goes against the scripture and against the spirit.

[FONT=&quot]The flesh sees pacifism as outrageous and wars against the spirit in such circumstances, but then the spirit war against the flesh.
[/FONT]

listed · Feb 23, 2012

I think it is down right shameful of ignorant people to promote the idea that people of faith can't participate in their government. Since the religious people seem to think that it is God's will for the wicked to rule the righteous and desire to follow the flesh and not the Spirit things will continue to decline. What is the balance and how does one get the religous to even vote the first step IMHO. Mid afternoon on the last voting day I was only the 12th person to vote all day. Does anyone even care anymore? What happens to boat rockers?

Gxg (G²) · Feb 23, 2012

Partaker of Christ said:
Just a quick reply and I hope to get back later.[FONT=&quot].
[/FONT]

Look forward to seeing when you're able to get back later...

In the flesh, I would want to take the militarism stand, but I believe that goes against the scripture and against the spirit.

[FONT=&quot]The flesh sees pacifism as outrageous and wars against the spirit in such circumstances, but then the spirit war against the flesh[/FONT]

I would wonder how one can say being militant is of the flesh and yet Hebrews 11 notes where the SPirit came upon others to go to war (i.e. Gideon, Jepthath, Deborah, David, etc). But to seek vengenence for its own sake...I can definately see that as of the flesh.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 23, 2012

listed said:
I think it is down right shameful of ignorant people to promote the idea that people of faith can't participate in their government. Since the religious people seem to think that it is God's will for the wicked to rule the righteous and desire to follow the flesh and not the Spirit things will continue to decline. What is the balance and how does one get the religous to even vote the first step IMHO. Mid afternoon on the last voting day I was only the 12th person to vote all day. Does anyone even care anymore? What happens to boat rockers?

Participation in government can definately be an expression of faith and a way to address unrighteousness. Curious, however, as to what you'd define as boat rockers? Would you be thinking of others in social protests like the folks from the Civil Rights era under Martin Luther King? Or would you be thinking of the militants such as Malcom X who were for self-defense "by any means necessary" in order to have change? Or were you speaking of others trying to gain public office?

Prayer Circle · Feb 23, 2012

Ray "Well made banana man " Comfort. Atheist Nightmare - YouTube

If you could go back in time and kill Hitler, while he was a failing artist and before he became entered into the first office of authority in Germany, knowing you'd save millions of lives in the process, would you take the shot?

You betcha!

Thou shalt not murder! Hitler murdered millions. Defense of innocence is not a sin.

Would you kill Pol Pot, Mao, Jim Jones?
To save the world from the evil that millions prayed someone would save them from, while suffering the evil of these men?

God's saving angel. Point blank. Hallelujah! If God didn't stop Hitler, amidst the countless prayers that beseeched him for salvation from his evil, might as well save one's self.

I'd rather be responsible for making Hitler a dead failure of an artist forgotten by history as just another German shot in the street, than have Hitler remembered as a psychotic national socialist who sought to rule the world while exterminating Gays, Christians, Jews, Roma, Germans, Catholics, the handicapped, etc... in order to insure his Reich live forever. :amen:

Gxg (G²) · Feb 23, 2012

SinAmenShe said:
Ray "Well made banana man " Comfort. Atheist Nightmare - YouTube

If you could go back in time and kill Hitler, while he was a failing artist and before he became entered into the first office of authority in Germany, knowing you'd save millions of lives in the process, would you take the shot?

You betcha!

Thou shalt not murder! Hitler murdered millions. Defense of innocence is not a sin.

Would you kill Pol Pot, Mao, Jim Jones?

To save the world from the evil that millions prayed someone would save them from, while suffering the evil of these men?

God's saving angel. Point blank. Hallelujah! If God didn't stop Hitler, amidst the countless prayers that beseeched him for salvation from his evil, might as well save one's self.

I'd rather be responsible for making Hitler a dead failure of an artist forgotten by history as just another German shot in the street, than have Hitler remembered as a psychotic national socialist who sought to rule the world while exterminating Gays, Christians, Jews, Roma, Germans, Catholics, the handicapped, etc... in order to insure his Reich live forever.

It is interesting to consider how others saying that they'd not take the shot (even if knowing what someone would become) have been of the mindset that people should not be taken out for something they'd do potentially. For until it comes to pass, it is not set in stone or destined to occur (in their views)---and others have said to me when I asked them that they would want to find ways of possibly trying to reform the man...and teach him differently.

SOme of it reminds me of the film entitled Minority Report and how the film dealt with alot of similar themes. For the film's central theme is the question of free will vs determinism..and it examines whether free will can exist if the future is set and known in advance. And when seeing how the system itself was flawed due to the nature of men being flawed/not knowing ALL things fully, it was jacked up since the main character who was an agent of "Pre-Crime" unit was framed.

Minority Report - Precrime Intro - YouTube

Minority Report Part 2

There was a lot of good points in regards to the film noting how an organization dedicated to stopping criminals before they made crimes was still wrong since they were stopped on the basis of potentiality. In regards to situations like Hitler, part of where others wrestle is seeing whether or not the man was DESTINED to do what he did....and therefore unable to be stopped...or if it could have been changed had he had different influences.

It all goes back to Ray Comforts question on abortion from his 180 video. For if a child (or a teenager, for that matter) can POTENTIALLY do something criminal in the future that'd harm others, does that mean one has the RIGHT to take them out? Others for abortion have often advocated that what they did was sparring others from a bad life...but of course that doesn't justify their acts of murder. And yet with others such as Hitler or any other man prior to their craziness, why is it that it seems we act differently?

Gxg (G²) · Feb 23, 2012

SinAmenShe said:
Ray "Well made banana man " Comfort. Atheist Nightmare - YouTube

Ray does have a good sense of humor

george baily · Feb 23, 2012

to much to read, but I love Ray Comfort!

Gxg (G²) · Feb 23, 2012

george baily said:
to much to read..

The video will catch you up enough, if going online/looking up the 180 movie by Comfort. And keeping it simple, the subject is simply on how would you have responded if living in his time. Would you have shot him to prevent death? Would you be willing to kill him even BEFORE he seemed to go off the deep end (i.e. as a struggling artist or a teen) or would you be willing to take him/his mother out when he was in the womb? And what would be the Biblical basis for any stance taken? How would one best respond to the things he did? WOuld you resist or fight?

Partaker of Christ · Feb 23, 2012

Easy G (G²);59877328 said:
Look forward to seeing when you're able to get back later...
I would wonder how one can say being militant is of the flesh and yet Hebrews 11 notes where the SPirit came upon others to go to war (i.e. Gideon, Jepthath, Deborah, David, etc). But to seek vengenence for its own sake...I can definately see that as of the flesh.

Hi again!

I think we need to take into account that those you quote were of the Israel of the earth. They were Gods earthly kingdom nation and under law, they went to war as and when God commanded them to.

Jesus (King of the Jews) said My Kingdom is now no longer of the world

Matt 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Mark 9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Luke 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

If Jesus is our Lord and Master, then we follow Him.

Jesus said in many places that you have heard or you have read followed by BUT I say unto you

John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

John 10:2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
John 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
John 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Luke 6:47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
Luke 6:48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
Luke 6:49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

Matt 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.

For to this you were called

1Pe 2:21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving behind an example for you, that you should follow in His footsteps,
1Pe 2:22 "Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth";
1Pe 2:23 who, being verbally abused, did not return verbal insults, when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;

[FONT=&quot]I don't find anywhere in scripture, were Jesus, or His followers; the apostles, or the early Church joined the military, caused physical harm to any man, took vengeance, or used physical self-defence. Nor did they get involved in worldly politics, governments, or any other worldly affairs.[/FONT]

Partaker of Christ · Feb 23, 2012

SinAmenShe said:
Ray "Well made banana man " Comfort. Atheist Nightmare - YouTube

If you could go back in time and kill Hitler, while he was a failing artist and before he became entered into the first office of authority in Germany, knowing you'd save millions of lives in the process, would you take the shot?

You betcha!

Thou shalt not murder! Hitler murdered millions. Defense of innocence is not a sin.

Would you kill Pol Pot, Mao, Jim Jones?
To save the world from the evil that millions prayed someone would save them from, while suffering the evil of these men?

God's saving angel. Point blank. Hallelujah! If God didn't stop Hitler, amidst the countless prayers that beseeched him for salvation from his evil, might as well save one's self.

I'd rather be responsible for making Hitler a dead failure of an artist forgotten by history as just another German shot in the street, than have Hitler remembered as a psychotic national socialist who sought to rule the world while exterminating Gays, Christians, Jews, Roma, Germans, Catholics, the handicapped, etc... in order to insure his Reich live forever.

Daniel 4:

Dan 4:25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Dan 4:30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?
Dan 4:31 While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.
Dan 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Dan 4:34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
[FONT=&quot]Dan 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?[/FONT]

Gxg (G²) · Feb 25, 2012

Partaker of Christ said:
Hi again!

I think we need to take into account that those you quote were of the Israel of the earth. They were Gods earthly kingdom nation and under law, they went to war as and when God commanded them to.

Jesus (King of the Jews) said My Kingdom is now no longer of the world

Matt 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Mark 9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

Luke 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

If Jesus is our Lord and Master, then we follow Him.

Jesus said in many places that you have heard or you have read followed by BUT I say unto you

John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

John 10:2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
John 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
John 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Luke 6:47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
Luke 6:48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
Luke 6:49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

Matt 10:24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

Shalom..

On what you noted, some of this I've shared before elsewhere in one of the references. But in regards to what Christ said on violence/swords, part of me is always amazed at how it wasn't just an "OT" thing. Just prior to his betrayal and this incident, Jesus had said to the disciples (Luke 22:35-36),

Luke 22:36

35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"

"Nothing," they answered.

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[a]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

Many interpreters take this to be a metaphorical statement commanding the disciples to be armed spiritually to fight spiritual foes...as seen in Ephesians 6:10-17. In favor of this view: (1) In Luke 22:38, the disciples misunderstand Jesus' command and produce literal swords....and on this view, Jesus' response that "it is enough" is a rebuke, saying essentially, "Enough of this talk about swords."....and of course, just a few minutes later Jesus will again prohibit the use of a literal sword in Luke 22:49-51, Matthew 26:51-52, John 18:10-11, etc).

Others, however, take this command to have a literal sword for self-defense and protection from robbers. In support of this view: (a) The moneybag and knapsack and cloak in this same verse are literal, and so the sword must be taken literally as well...and Jesus disciples that "it is enough" actually approves the swords the disciples have as being enough...and Jesus's later rebuke in verses 49-51 only prohibits them from blocking his arrest and suffering in John 18:11, that is, from seeking to advance the Kingdom of God by force. The very fact that the disciples possess swords suggests that Jesus has not prohibited them from carrying swords up till to this point....and Jesus never prohibited self defense.

Clearly Pacificism is not what Jesus had in mindespecially when considering as many scholars have said that the journey of the disciples would indeed be a dangerous one to make. As it stands, its interesting to see the interpretation of Peters thoughts in I Peter 2-4 as submitting to oppressive governments on all things since Peter Himself was not known for being a punk....

If objecting to pacifism, most disagreeing will go to Matthew 5:38 on "Do not resist the one who is evil"....but for the sake of context, people forget that "eye for an eye" was the "law of retaliation"...which was Gods means of maintaining justice and purging evil from among his people---as seen in Deuteronomy 19:20-21 Deuteronomy 19 and Exodus 21:23-25 Exodus 21. It was intended to prevent inappropriate punishment (the punishment should fit the crime) and was imposed by civil authorities rather than individuals.

I think itd be a negative thing to try discussing what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:38-39 on self-defense without understanding how the Jewish mind operated/would have understood the issue then.as what often happens is that we come to the scriptures with a 21st century lens/view it through that rather than through the lens of 1st century Judaism. Ive greatly enjoyed fellowshipping more so with many Jewish believers in the faith/learning of the more Hebraic side of thingsand ne of the books Ive been reading lately is by a Messianic Jewish scholar known as Dr.Michael Brown..as hes a brillant man of Godand one who often does apolegetics toward non-believing Jews. As he said best on the issue in his book, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus

Interestingly, while it is not uncommon for anti-missionaries to attack some of these passages, it is often the Jewish background to the passage that elucidates its meaning. Note, for example, that Luke 6:29 states, If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also, but Matthew 5:39, which occurs in the context of legal retaliation (see Matt. 5:38!), provides an important detail: But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. Does this mean that if someone breaks into your home and tries to kill your spouse and your kids, you should sit idly by even if you could easily stop them, or, perhaps even turn your family over to the intruder to be brutalized? Does it mean that you dont call the police or offer any resistance? Of course not. The issue is one of legal retaliation, in this case, for being publicly shamed, which we know because of the words, If someone strikes you on the right cheek, implying a backhanded slap against the face. That is to say, a right-handed orientation is assumed in similar legal cases, and, since a right-handed slap would strike the left cheek and a right-handed person would not strike with the left hand, being struck on the right cheek means being struck with the back of the hand.

As Nolland and others have noted, the Mishnah dealt with this very situation in m. B. K. 9:6. To summarize, a slap with the back of the hand calls for twice the payment in recompense for other blows; in terms of dishonor it is on the same level as tearing an ear, plucking out hair, spitting on someone, pulling a cloak off, and loosing a womans hair in public.

Now, it must be remembered that the Mishnah was often dealing with actual laws and procedures, along with legal theory, just as a court today would get into great detail in terms of determining culpability and assessing fines and punishments. That is perfectly understandable as an ongoing application of Torah law. Yeshua (Jesus), however, was saying to his disciples, This is not for you. Im calling you to something higher. When you are publicly shamed and have the right to exact payment, turn the other cheek. Make yourself vulnerable and dont try to fight your opponent on his terms. Step higher!

Michael L. Brown: Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 4

Pray this adds to the discussion.

Of course, I don't wish it to come off as if Im advocating a tit for tat mindset. In example, if a gang in my city came and bombed my house and set it on fire and it burnt to the ground, of course Christ forbids me to go over to the gangs house and blow theirs up. But if they come into my home DEMANDING to rape my wife-and Im presentsomeones going to be taken out.

With Jesuss views on Matthew 5:38, the difficult part of applying Jesus teaching for me, and probably for all of us, is to determine its scope of applicability. For it is suspected that it applies to a lot more situations than we want it to, or with which we are comfortable. And Peter builds on the thought later on when saying, Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; 9 not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:8-9).

However, historically, and in some church groups today, these verses are used to argue for governmental pacifism in relation to war or even capital punishment. This is where I feel we need to look at Jesus audience. At this is where I think people need to be cautious. For Christ is not addressing the Roman government or even the Jewish judicial authorities.for as it stands, in Matthew 5:1, when He is seated, that His disciples come to Him, the teaching was about what a disciple of Jesus should do when personally confronted with these types of situations. .as in one on one rather than on behalf of another.

When it came to what Jesus said, it doesn't seem to be the case that Jesus was prohibiting the use of force by government, police, or soldiers when it comes to combating evil. More can be found in Luke 3:13-15 / Luke 3 , ,Romans 13:3-5 Romans 13 (on government), and 1 Peter 2:13-15 1 Peter 2 --where people discusses submitting to civil authorities given power to protect others.

Interestingly enough, anyone reading the NT can see where God was more than for Retribution of his saints, as seen in the lives of those who are murdered--as seen in Revelation 6:9-11 / Revelation 6

But I think that the violence used in self-defense & how often we may praise it may need to be considered carefully. For it never seems to be the case that Jesus was for allowing swords/living by violence predominately to spread his Kingdom....as it would have been when the people tried to make him king by Force in John 6/John 6:14-16..or when James and John wanted to call down fire on a village in Luke 9:53-55 / ..or, as the disciples often did, hindering Jesus from fufilling his mission...like with Peter in Matthew 16:22-24.

As I've shared elsewhere, on the issue, I think it's more than relevant to see that Jesus chose a Zealot to be apart of his ministry team---and one whom would be taught the teachings of Christ when it came to loving ones enemies.

This is seen clearly in the life of Simon the Zealot ( Luke 6:14-16 / Luke 6 / Matthew 10:3-5 / Matthew 10 /Mark 3:17-19 Mark 3 ), who was the "terrorist" of the group (and most likely a problem, especially when dealing with tax-collectors and understanding the History between them and the Zealots..already against government in a myriad of ways ). Christ chose others among DIFFERENT Camps--some who were against government occupation/not having their own PHYSICAL land & others that were all for it, as seen when HE simultaneouly chose both ZEALOTS and TAX-Collectors to be apart of His inner circle. BOTH sides had significant issue with the other, with Zealots wishing to overthrow Rome and feeling as if Tax-Collectors had "Sold out"....yet Christ looked past that.

And as Levi/Matthew was a Tax-Collector, one has to wonder how much there were times of starring each other down/him feeling uneasy around someone who was known to support others killing off folks in his line of work. Simon was called a "Zealot" in his lifestyle before ministry with Jesus, probably a member of the Zealot party, which was a party determined to overthrow Roman Domination in Palestine. Interestingly enough, the "Zealot" term is still used for the man AFTER Christ rose from the Gravein Acts 1:13 & Acts 1:12-14.

IMHO, it gives room to indicate that even after being in the midst of Jesus, that which he may have been known for was probably with him to one degree or another---such as still possibly wishing for Rome to be overthrown or having sympathies for those against Roman Oppression. When considering how the man died, some say he was martyred---whereas others say that he was involved in a Jewish revolt against the Romans, , which was brutally suppressed in A.D 70. Regardless, the man was one who had to be exposed to what it meant to serve others in love----for it was highly RADICAL/Counter-Cultural...

Gxg (G²) · Feb 25, 2012

Partaker of Christ said:
For to this you were called

1Pe 2:21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving behind an example for you, that you should follow in His footsteps,
1Pe 2:22 "Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth";
1Pe 2:23 who, being verbally abused, did not return verbal insults, when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;

[FONT=&quot]I don't find anywhere in scripture, were Jesus, or His followers; the apostles, or the early Church joined the military, caused physical harm to any man, took vengeance, or used physical self-defence. Nor did they get involved in worldly politics, governments, or any other worldly affairs.[/FONT]

The early church often debated the issue on a myriad of occassions...especially in light of other soldiers who were not condemned for their being in the army like the Roman Centurion of Acts 10-11 who was saved, the one whom Christ noted to have greater faith than anyone he had seen in Israel within Matthew 8 or the soldiers coming to John the Baptist.

Something to consider on the point about Peter’s discussion on Church Government—-as I think one can see it as both being true while also not being for the mindset of supporting oppression of others.

For if the TORAH itself already discussed how INJUSTICES—-opressing the poor, ignoring the plight of the fatherless/widows, practicing sexual immorality, bribery, etc—-were all EVILS that God condemned in government and commanded his people to speak on, it would be silly to think that any Jew would take what Peter was saying to mean that all actions of a government should be submitted to. I Peter 2:13-25 may have a different context in mind that many may be missing when its discussing submitting to every institution.

Perhaps it was in the sense of when accused of wrong-doing—as that’s what Peter mentioned later on with the example of Christ and Him speaking out against evils, yet trusting in the Lord when He was put on trial for it/crucified by Divine Order…and likewise, as many believers were being blamed for the wrongs in their day, they were to trust the Lord when they were put on trial…knowimg that God would vindicate them against slander.

For there’s something about reacting to accusation with defense that often makes one look more “guilty”..and acting with dignity seems to go far many times since people will trip on you. Peter did seem to make clear that God would give justice upon those who did wrong====and I do wonder if perhaps he had the mindset that many slaves had when they felt as if remaining as “slaves with good attitutes” was their only real option to make it to tommorrow……….instead of fighting back all the time, knowing that it would not be forever (just as it wasn’t forever for Christ when he was mistreated).

The audience he was speaking is in no way seen to be the one for ALL ages/situations—-as Paul already said in I Corinthians 7 that if one is a slave, they should SEEK their freedom..and in II Peter 3, Peter told the audience that they needed to listen to Paul in the scriptures he had written….so there is a degree of progression of thought.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 25, 2012

Partaker of Christ said:
Daniel 4:

Dan 4:25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Dan 4:30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?
Dan 4:31 While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.
Dan 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Dan 4:34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
[FONT=&quot]Dan 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?[/FONT]

Great scripture...

Harry3142 · Feb 25, 2012

Easy G-

We blame Hitler for the horrors committed in Germany after he came to power, and in the occupied nations after his army conquered them. But we need to remember that Adolph Hitler only succeeded in the mass murder of millions because he had followers who were more than willing to do the 'dirty work'. The slaughter of those people was approved by Hitler, but he himself never participated in the actual commission of that slaughter. Instead, there were thousands of fellow germans, as well as hundreds of willing collaborators in the conquered territories, who committed those atrocities for him.

During the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Israel numerous film footage, as well as photographs, were presented as evidence in his trial. This film wasn't shot by those who intended to use it as evidence against the people committing the crimes. Instead, it was shot by other german soldiers or civilians who intended to use it later in order to show how they had succeeded in the ethnic cleansing of Europe. It was only when it became clear that Germany would lose the war that those films and photos started being seen as proof of the atrocities which had been committed.

Adolph Hitler took advantage of a situation that was already well under way when he was born. Antisemitism was rife in Germany, as was the belief in the natural superiority of the aryan race. Martin Luther was antisemitic. Pogroms had been conducted on numerous occasions against the Jews living in Germany. During the 19th century a congregant in a german church could expect to hear a sermon that was virulently antisemitic whenever he atttended a church service. Blind hatred had taken on the disguise of sanctity long before the 20th century dawned.

Was Hitler the impetus that led the people of Germany to replace rhetoric with firing squads and gas chambers? Yes, he was. But can we say that another person would not have done the same thing if Hitler himself had been killed earlier? No, we cannot. The hatred was too widespread, with too many people seeing the Jews as worthy only of death. Had Hitler not been there to fill the role of leadership, there would have been another to take his place. The perversion of sanctity had simply gotten to the point where the people were waiting for anyone at all to give them the order to kill.

As for abortions, we can legislate morality through laws forbidding it, as we have in the past. But to make men and women behave in a Christlike manner without their actually becoming Christians is comparable to teaching a parrot to talk. No matter how many words it learns to say, it's still a parrot, not a person. In like manner, nonbelievers can be made to obey every law that we Christians believe in following, but they will still be nonbelievers. We Christians are set apart from the world. Those who seek abortions in large part are an example of that world. If we want to help them, we need to treat the illness of worldliness, rather than the symptoms of that illness.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 26, 2012

Harry3142 said:
Easy G-

We blame Hitler for the horrors committed in Germany after he came to power, and in the occupied nations after his army conquered them. But we need to remember that Adolph Hitler only succeeded in the mass murder of millions because he had followers who were more than willing to do the 'dirty work'. The slaughter of those people was approved by Hitler, but he himself never participated in the actual commission of that slaughter. Instead, there were thousands of fellow germans, as well as hundreds of willing collaborators in the conquered territories, who committed those atrocities for him.

During the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Israel numerous film footage, as well as photographs, were presented as evidence in his trial. This film wasn't shot by those who intended to use it as evidence against the people committing the crimes. Instead, it was shot by other german soldiers or civilians who intended to use it later in order to show how they had succeeded in the ethnic cleansing of Europe. It was only when it became clear that Germany would lose the war that those films and photos started being seen as proof of the atrocities which had been committed.

Adolph Hitler took advantage of a situation that was already well under way when he was born. Antisemitism was rife in Germany, as was the belief in the natural superiority of the aryan race. Martin Luther was antisemitic. Pogroms had been conducted on numerous occasions against the Jews living in Germany. During the 19th century a congregant in a german church could expect to hear a sermon that was virulently antisemitic whenever he atttended a church service. Blind hatred had taken on the disguise of sanctity long before the 20th century dawned.

Was Hitler the impetus that led the people of Germany to replace rhetoric with firing squads and gas chambers? Yes, he was. But can we say that another person would not have done the same thing if Hitler himself had been killed earlier? No, we cannot. The hatred was too widespread, with too many people seeing the Jews as worthy only of death. Had Hitler not been there to fill the role of leadership, there would have been another to take his place. The perversion of sanctity had simply gotten to the point where the people were waiting for anyone at all to give them the order to kill.
.

Brother Harry3142,

Thank you ever so much for the response you gave. For many of the things you brought up before were things I had never considered before, especially in regards to what you mentioned with factors such as the photos of attrocities taking on differing perspectives based on the end results and however they'd turn out. I agree with you as it concerns the issue of how anti-semitism was something that pervaded the culture of Germany in many ways LONG before Hitler arrived...even though there were others who actively resisted against it. With Hitler himself, he was but a figurehead in many ways of the the desires of the general populace in many areas---and if the crowd was already distrustful of Jews, it's not a suprise to see how Hitler was able to get so much action backing him with combatting them.

The history behind the Pogroms is something that's often forgotten when it comes to the ways that Jews were previously persecuted.

And spiritually, many of the Churches in Germany also did their part in ensuring that much of how the Jews were seen was shown in a negative sense. Sadly, many of the churches in Germany did great error in aiding the Nazi regime and viewing the Jews wrongly...and the consequences are still here today. The Messianic Jewish brothers at Rosh Pina Project did a great job of addressing the ways that the CHurch should have responded...seen here:

Hitler, the Church and Messianic Jews | - The Rosh Pina Project

Indeed, in many ways, Hitler would have simply been replaced by someone else had he been taken out long before he had the opportunity to do anything. And not realizing that can cause a world of actions to occur that may miss the root cause of things. Some of it seems similar to what occurred with 9/11 and how many were either demanding the bombing of the countries that terrorists came from---or demanding that all the terrorists be eliminated. For as another said, "You can kill the man who killed..but you cannot kill the spirit which drove him to killing." If a spirit of hatred was already existing and that spirit was birthed out of a certain mindset that was never addressed, one can only go so far in trying to selectively deal with people......

With Hitler's actions and how he often relied upon an atmosphere of pre-existing hate (as well as frustration at how his country was wrongly given the "bill" of all expenses from WWI to deal with), it is interesting to consider the ways that not everyone within the country was prone to hate---or to believe his lies on the Aryan race. It was already mentioned earlier how others, such as Deitrick Bonheffer and the groups he rolled with alongside others, stood actively against Hitler and didn't buy into the Anti-Jewish sentiments that much of the nation had. But even apart from that, others in the nation didn't support Hitler on much of his propoganda when it came to his belittling other ethnic groups in general. In example, many within the nation were aware of the struggles happening in other nations such as the U.S and how it wrongfully mistreated blacks--and they stood in admiration of how blacks handled themselves when it came to "white" culture saying they were "inferior" even though there wasn't evidence of such.

Although there were MANY cases of experimentation/abuse upon those who were black in Germany (i.e. Afro German) and of African descent in Germany's conquered territories -just as there was abuse toward the Jews----many in Germany consistently proved to be a voice against it all. It is interesting to see how Hitler seemed to plan on utilizing the atmosphere of hate in many places as a platform to support his Aryan race ideology during the Olympics...and got humiliated when blacks came to Germany/won in stunning fashion. Nonetheless, Hitler was able to continue on with his Aryan ideology because it was the case that no one really cared to believe past what they wanted to when it seemed to give hope to many if they felt that Aryan race thinking was how it was meant to be.

If many within the populace of Germany had been willing to address the mindsets leading to hate, Hitler would not have been able to continue with the Holocaust....one that not only touched the Jews, but later the blacks as well who he began to persecute intensely later (and even managing to extend genocide across the seas when it came to working with others like Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood (if looking up the "Negro Project" as she named it and seeing her attempts to wipe out minorities in the U.S while Hitler sought to deal with Jews in his area...shared here in #8 and #13. ). More was discussed elsewhere in-depth, as seen here:

Easy G (G²);59275976 said:
Originally Posted by inconsequential

I can understand nationalism in some circumstances because some countries ARE better than others when it comes to culture, beliefs, etc.

Easy G (G²);59275976 said:

With the subject of nationalism, I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing. One can have pride in their ethnic heritage and national history. This is what the entire basis behind the Olympics is centered upon

..at one point when Hitler was in power/trying to promote nationalism with a negative sense, Hitler sought to use the games to further his own ends. Pg 67 of the "National Identity and Global Sports" book talked specifically about Hitler in his not favoring sports at all since he/others felt that they were implicitly universalistic--and something that could not be limted as a domain for only one group to dominate as they desired. The history is truly fascinating, Bro.

Of course, what occurred with the Olympics at Berlin is something that Hitler wasn't prepared for...specifically if seeing how big of a deal it was for folks like James "Jesse" Owens to go to the Olympics when the Nazi's sponsored it since a black male outclassed all within the events he did and went against Hitler's intended goal of showcasing those whom he felt lived up to his Aryan ideals and were meant to be seen as the dominant ethnicity.

To see that occur is interesting in light of how blacks were treated in the U.S --very nationalistic as well, even though they mistreated their own people (i.e. Afro-Americas, Japanese Americans, Native Americans, etc ) who felt they were apart of American identity as well and fought in the same wars the U.S was fighting abroad. For them, it was an issue of having a nationalism that involved the concept W.E.B Debois discussed with "2 Americas".....and the U.S nationalistic pride they had was not pride that another part of U.S culture had pride in since that aspect of U.S culture was destroying minorities.

With Jessie Owens, this is significant since he was able to nationally represent a country that hated/despised him....and for Jessie Owens to be cheered at the Olympics by others outside of America made a big impression. Owens was told to be ready for insults when he arrived/not to be surprised at others hating him.....and yet later Owens recalled that he had gotten the greatest ovations of his career at Berlin.

Some have said that the reason why was because while Nazi officials were often trying to portray blacks/other minorities as inferior, the people of Germany felt differently when seeing him in action---and those supporting him did so out of admiration just as much as they did so out of rebellion to governmental views they disagreed with.

For more, go to "Owens to be honored for '36 Hitler humiliation - Olympic Sports - NBC Sports"

As far as I know from what I read, in Hitler's Germany Jesse Owens could share a bus or tram ride with white people. Treated equally before the law he could visit a cinema or church with whites, use public toilets and dine in restaurants, stay in hotels without any discrimination being shown towards him. But in the U.S, Negro athletes were required to eat apart from their white fellow athletes.

If they were allowed to share the same hotel at all ( unlikely most of the times), it would be necessary for them to use the back entrance.

To have all of those factors working together with the Olympics is interesting...and it gets even crazier when seeing how Hitler (as a Eugenist) worked with people such as Margret Sanger to establish Planned Parenthood (if looking up the "Negro Project" as she named it)/attempt to wipe out minorities in the U.S while Hitler sought to deal with Jews in his area. And for those who were Afro-Germans, they were also dealt with---a subject which was discussed more in-depth here in #8 and #13.

Having a black man celebrated in Germany was a huge encouragment to others during the era---but in many ways, it could be used as a distraction for Hitler on other levels. Others around the world realized this in many ways when it came to the Olympics/nationalistic dynamics being used to divert from larger issues.. In many ways, the politics of Germany violating certain concepts almost had it shut down. In discussing the subject with my brother/best bud in Christ, here's what he noted:

Specifically in our class, we talked about when we talk about Theater & performance...-these things are not limited to just stage performance in the traditional sense. In the basest sense, whenever you are doing something in front of people we are essentially performing. (unnerving for a C, I know). It hits at the question of who you really are and the different ways we choose to portray ourselves in different scenearios. One point discussed in the class is that actors are mearly people who release the inner character within themselves, i.e., someone playing a king is releasing the king that is really inside of him and presenting it on stage to others since the entire crux of theater as opposed to cinema is the dynamic of having a live audience present. Specifically concerning the Olympics, this was presented as a performance on the part of the Nazi regime as you already noted w/ Hitler desiring to showcase the superiority of the Aryan race, but also video clips we have from the event (on youtube) show the prominent display of Swastika banners. Also, the professor discussed how their was much debate over whether countries (such as the USA) would boycott the Olympics since Germany's actions at this point were not a secret since I believe they had already violated some aspects of the their treaty fr WWI and maybe even gone as far as conquering some smaller territories. There was huge debate over whether the US and other countries should boycott the games as this article discusses: The Movement to Boycott the Berlin Olympics of 1936

And the US did boycott the games when held in Moscow in 1980 due to Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

Click to expand...

"Love Your Enemies.or Take the Shot": What would've been just action in Hitler's era?

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Newbie

are you?

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Well-Known Member

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Active Member

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Newbie

Newbie

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Regular Member

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Similar threads