Love Your Enemies..unless it's Hitler" : MJism on how far one goes to save life....

Gxg (G²) · Feb 22, 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 other Messianics on the subject, 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 22, 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 Bonhoeffer’s 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 Hitler’s 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 can’t 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?

Mr. Donut · Feb 26, 2012

Easy G (G²);59872629 said:
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: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" (

---"Jesus Creed » Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Sneak Preview" ( )

---"Was Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrong to plot against Hitler's life? -Desiring God" (

---"SOF: Ethics and the Will of God, The Legacy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer " ( )

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?

Intersting thread...
You could apply the same questions to the American Revolution, the French Revolution or the fight for freedom for the Republic of Texas. Hitler is a rather extreme case of hatred and power hunger.
Does God call men to revolution? Yes, let us remember Barak, Gideon, Samson and others God called to fight against the enemies of His People.
One needs to pray and look to motive, are the motives of the action for greater good or self? In the example given of Hitler, we know Hitler thought only of himself and the expansion of his power. In the case of Rev. Bonhoeffer, we see a man whose focus was on a greater good for Gods people and not himself. Rev. Bonhoeffer was willing to die to save Jews, to save as many as he could. How does that mesh with the words of Yeshua in John 15:13, "No one has greater love than this, to lay down ones life for ones friends." It meshes very well indeed, so would it be safe to say the intent was pure?
We need to accept that God knows the very intent of our hearts, and we need to direct our actions based purely on that knowledge, only then will we/should we know when we step out of bounds.
Can we or should we kill to save lives?
It depends on each specific situation.
In the case of war time against a murdering tyrant like Hitler, I am hard pressed to see where there could be any justification for his actions other than they were pure evil. When we look to Torah we find the commands of how we are to treat one who murders or those who stand against Gods people. The terms of "the murderer shall be put to death" and "utterly destroy" come to mind...
Great post Brother.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 27, 2012

Mr. Donut said:
Intersting thread...
You could apply the same questions to the American Revolution, the French Revolution or the fight for freedom for the Republic of Texas. Hitler is a rather extreme case of hatred and power hunger.

Great points you brought up...and interestingly enough, many feel that none of those revolutions should ever have been participated in since in their minds it went against the commands of submitting to government. For others, their interpretation was that Revolution should have been allowed--with it being the case that they'd make distinction between the Revolutions that occurred in history and showing which ones were justified or went down properly (As others feel the French Revolution was RADICALLY different in approach/strategy than the American and uncalled for since it was mass killing all around).

For those who were slaves, Revolution would always be a bit of a double-edged sword since many were constantly placed in the position of fighting for freedom and yet wishing to honor the government--and seeing where others would have no problem advocating for freedom and yet saying to slaves they couldn't be free. The ways that the slaves in American (and Caribbean)/New World history handled themselves when great revolutions were occurring was an amazing account.

Does God call men to revolution? Yes, let us remember Barak, Gideon, Samson and others God called to fight against the enemies of His People.

One needs to pray and look to motive, are the motives of the action for greater good or self? In the example given of Hitler, we know Hitler thought only of himself and the expansion of his power. In the case of Rev. Bonhoeffer, we see a man whose focus was on a greater good for Gods people and not himself. Rev. Bonhoeffer was willing to die to save Jews, to save as many as he could. How does that mesh with the words of Yeshua in John 15:13, "No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." It meshes very well indeed, so would it be safe to say the intent was pure?

In regards to the thread, seeing how certain aspects of the discussion always seem to go the route of discussing whether it's more biblical to support pacifism...or militarism/Revolution, I've sought 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). But on what you noted, I do think the Lord does call for Revolutionaries at times....and if someone says they are, one must be VERY careful since it's no small thing.

In the times Bonhoeffer lived in, things were VERY extreme all around...and thus, there was a need to process what would be the greatest response to take that'd match the times in level of intensity.

We need to accept that God knows the very intent of our hearts, and we need to direct our actions based purely on that knowledge, only then will we/should we know when we step out of bounds.

I'd say in connection with this that the Word must be the ultimate guide. For the heart can be decieving at times ( Jeremiah 17:8-10, Proverbs 16:1-3 , etc )--and the scriptures are what is to guide us, alongside wisdom.

Can we or should we kill to save lives?

It depends on each specific situation.

Agreed 100%

In the case of war time against a murdering tyrant like Hitler, I am hard pressed to see where there could be any justification for his actions other than they were pure evil. When we look to Torah we find the commands of how we are to treat one who murders or those who stand against Gods people. The terms of "the murderer shall be put to death" and "utterly destroy" come to mind...

I think the terms of murderer are interesting when seeing how the scriptures make the distinction between intentional /unjustified and accidental or mistakes (i.e. Cities of Refuge, Numbers 35, Exodus 20:12-14, Deuteronomy 5:16-18 , Deuteronomy 21 , Deuteronomy 22:25-27/Deuteronomy 22 )--and within that, the Lord was very strick on the matter. And even outside the Torah, there was a great principle at play with regards to bloodshed needing to be addressed---as seen when the Lord said in Genesis 9:5-7 Genesis 9 :

And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.

And our suffering, if persecuted, should never be on the basis of us being murderers ( 1 Peter 4:14-16 ). What is said here, of course, will touch on other issues as well--such as the death penalty and how to respond to that. Moreover, something else that is often not considered is that even if one wishes to take out something causing damage, the reality is that context/settings may need to be considered. In the case with Hitler, someone alerted me to the very powerful point of how everyone focuses on him...and yet NO one considers the ways that he was but one many among many.

As another said best on the subject when I asked on the issue elsewhere:

Harry3142 said:
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.

.

In regards to what one of my brothers said on the matter, I really had to pause. For I had never considered how anti-semitism was something that pervaded MUCH of 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.

People say "Hitler was a MURDERER"---yet the scriptures also discuss how having reckless anger/hatred for someone is also murder...and failure to love your brother is the ROOT of murder as well ( 1 John 3:14-16/ 1 John 3 , Matthew 5:20-22 / Matthew 5 , Matthew 15:18-20, Romans 13:8-10 ). What many may not consider is how many of the things Hitler did were simply physical/institutional expressions of what a culture was already supporting in regards to their neglect of their Jewish brothers/sisters.

Sadly, 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......

It's one of the reasons why I could never understand why others in government do things such as assassinations to begin with since those things in/of themselves will never cure problems. In many ways, it ensures at times that problems will either continue on or get worse. Was in the bookstore recently a book under the name of Assassination: a history of political murder--and a bit shocked seeing the ways others sought to use it as a means of control...yet if Yeshua said those who live by the sword will die by the sword, I wonder how much security those people engaging in such have once its done. Often, people discuss the subject of assassination as if it's a "cool" thing--and yet no one discusses people can find it hard to sleep at night when doing that.....nor do others talk about how it doesn't necessarily address evils of the heart.

Again, Hitler was but one man..

And taking it back to the OP in regards to what was mentioned on Esther/Haman, it can be easy to think that Haman was ONE man who did everything---but there was ANTI-Semitism within the Persian Empire as well at many points...and one man wasn't enough to do the job. There had to be help as well and a pre-existing mindset of hate that gave more fuel to Hamman's plan. For even after taking Haman out, the reality is that the edict he set in motion couldn't be stopped--and those who already were enemies of Jews wanted to do something evil, as seen in Esther 8-9.

Great post Brother.

Thanks for the encouragement, Bro. And nice to meet you...

Gxg (G²) · Feb 27, 2012

RevSTButler said:
In the case of war time against a murdering tyrant like Hitler, I am hard pressed to see where there could be any justification for his actions other than they were pure evil. When we look to Torah we find the commands of how we are to treat one who murders or those who stand against Gods people. The terms of "the murderer shall be put to death" and "utterly destroy" come to mind...
.

There was something I once came across in an article on the subject of how often Hitler gets blamed as the central reason behind the Holocaust...and yet no one considers how he was but symbolic of something greater. Although I didn't agree with all points noted by the author I came across, I definately agreed with him when it came to taking responsibility. In his words (for brief excerpt):

What do you do with the deep human evil that was the Holocaust? We recognize, that there is nothing particularly deficient about German genetics that makes them predisposed to evil. Furthermore, while we understand that while German culture certainly played a part in giving rise to the evils of World War II, we also acknowledge that the cultural history of Germany isnt substantially different from its Western neighbors to single out a single thing that sets Germany apart that makes it intrinsically more capable of Genocide than other nations. Unless, of course, that thing is the presence of an almost god-like evil being like Adolf Hitler.

The name that we give the Evil that led to Holocaust and War is Hitler. And in so naming this evil, Hitler takes his place among the pantheon of modern Western civilization. If we have supernatural beingsif we have godsHitler is one of them. He may play the part of the evil god, but he is a god nonetheless. To many, he has taken the place of Satan.

To illustrate my point (that Hitler is our cultures evil god even to the point of usurping Satan), let us suppose you are in an argument with a friend over the ethics of veganism. Your friend, let us suppose, is a vegan. You, however, are an omnivore. The argument escalates to the point that your friend yells: Every time you eat bacon, you are the same as Adolf Hitler! Would that upset you more (be honest) than if your friend said you were the same as the devil?

If you are like me, youre likely to feel offended at the former, and may even chuckle at the latter.

And so, the first commonality of Jesus and Hitler is that, in our modern mythology, they are both gods.

Another thing that Hitler and Jesus share is that they are both scapegoats. Jesus status as a scapegoat has been explored in numerous writingsmost notably in the work of René Girard. Generally, Christians believe that our sins have passed to Jesus (in some way or another) so that when he is sacrificed, he is being sacrificed in our stead. Unfortunately, this has become somewhat transactional to many, leading them to embrace a cheap grace.

It is interesting to me that the thinker best known for exposing this Christian tendency did so in the shadow of NazismDietrich Bonhoeffer. How ironic that we can easily read Bonhoeffer and agree that we shouldnt treat Jesus as a mere scapegoat only to turn to Adolf Hitler to propitiate our sins!

Let me explain.

As I suggested earlier, it is generally held that Adolf Hitler is the reason Nazism arose in Germany and proceeded to commit acts of genocide. Hitler becomes the Solitary Cause of evilalmost a supernaturally sinister being. However, a different view of the rise of Nazism is that Hitler was focusing and manifesting the larger zeitgeist of the German peopleor at least of a growing movement within the German people.

When we blame Hitler for what happened in WWII, we fail to name the larger conditions and trends that brought Hitler to power and enabled the horrific deeds of the Holocaust. And thus, Hitler becomes a scapegoat for the horrors of the war.

But he is much more than simply a scapegoat for the Germans. He serves a larger purpose in western society. To invoke his name is to invoke evil, and to assume that he is significantly more evil than we are. To liken someone to Hitler is taboo. When, in the course of internet conversation Godwins Law comes into effect, it is an instant conversation ender. In other words, NOBODY is as evil as Hitler, and to suggest so is as much of a taboo as we have in our culture.

So, when we say that USAmerican treatments of Native Americans was like a Holocaust or that modern day Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinian people, etc., the conversation is over. It doesnt matter how bad anyones history isor how wicked a nations behavior isnothing could ever rival the unspeakable evil that is HITLER. And, thank Jesus, Hitler is such an anomaly that we could NEVER do something like that again.

And so, Hitler is the Dark Jesus who takes away the sins for our own atrocitiesour modern injustices, our past genocides.

MessianicMommy · Feb 27, 2012

I would LOVE to talk to you about this. As in "talk" not type. So much that typing would just take pages and pages.

I can think of a few books that would maybe fill in the blanks some. Sometimes History Channel runs some ZDF/ARD or Spiegel Geschichte made history programs on Germany (1900s-2000s).

For me, my dad taught a TON of 1920s-1980s German history, so I really only had to fill in the blanks of the before and after of that. I did not know politics, so I had to get a couple books to fill in those blanks. All of them are still in the US. You can only pack so many books in a suitcase with kids clothes around it... and since I had read most of them, I decided for theological books I had not yet covered.

Most of what you find pre-WWI, Weimar republic and then Nazi Germany is the absolute WORST time for Jews in Germany since the Crusades. There was a lot that led up to that, but the main thrust was scape-goating problems from those in a position of authority, to someone else.

I believe Bonhöffer had the right idea. Like the midwives to the Hebrew women in Egypt prior to the Exodus, obey the authority until it hinges on disobeying scripture. And like Moses, if you have to - kill to save another's life.

History channel ran some great documentaries that were assisted by ZDF/ARD and Spiegel Geschichte (channels here) and a lot of institutes here in Germany and Austria to cover the people who tried to assassinate Hitler and the different methods they used to attempt to achieve their goal. Some were like Bonhöffer, others were military men. My mind is going blank on what the series is called in english, but it runs once in a while on Spiegel Geschichte and the dub over the English always makes it difficult for me to watch. (Do I listen to the very quiet English or the German that runs on top of the English for the interview part?)

Purim, Germany and WWII go together rather interestingly. Loads to talk about. Simply loads.

Mr. Donut · Feb 27, 2012

e-talking, it's so personal!

My family has their own history from Nazi Germany, as liberators and first hand witnesses to what was really happening there. Also from the Pacific where the Japanese were every bit as evil. War has a way of bringing out the best in people, doesn't it?

There are many Allied films which also document much of the "Final Solution". Some, however, are not for the faint spirited. It can, and should, be hard to watch man mistreat his fellow man for something as stupid as "race".

The Nazis hated the Jews because they felt they were an inferior "race", the Japanese felt they were the superior "race". Think about this: they both thought they were superior yet they both lost the war and more. So where do we see arrogance getting us?

I don't see those who hate for racial reasons as "winning".

Gxg (G²) · Feb 27, 2012

RevSTButler said:
My family has their own history from Nazi Germany, as liberators and first hand witnesses to what was really happening there. Also from the Pacific where the Japanese were every bit as evil.

If you ever have the chance, I'd HIGHLY recommend that you check out this book entitled If I Perish

Had to read it for a mission trip I took last year to Jamaica...and it was truly amazing seeing what was going on in other parts of the world of others during the times of the Holocaust/previously. It's by a woman known as Ahn Ei Sook, a wealthy industrialist's frail daughter and Christian school teacher who set out in 1939 on an incredible journey from Pyongyang to Tokyo to make Japanese leaders aware of the Japanese atrocities against Korean Christians. In bold defiance of the tyrannical command to bow to the pagan Japanese shrines. For this she was condemned to a living death in the filth and degradation of a Japanese prison. Although she was imprisoned and tormented for many years, her determination and fortitude never diminished....but she never lost her faith and ended up winning MANY prisoners (and captors) to the Lord. After being released from prison, she married Don Kim and together they toured the United States and Europe to tell about God's sustaining power during six harrowing but triumphant years in Japanese prisons (1939-1945).

What occurred with Japan's War Crimes (an Asian Holocaust)/the believers who were impacted is amazing--especially in light of how Japan became one of the world's only countries where Jews could find refuge from the Holocaust, despite Japan's alliance with Nazi Germany...and many Jews survived there, despite Japan's actions to other Asians.

And as another said in review of the "If I Perish" book:

We have read much about the brutality of the Germans against the French During World War II, and of the Japanese against the Chinese, but we do not have many accounts of what the Japanese did to the Koreans.

During their war with China in the 1930’s, the Japanese realized the importance of Korea as a geographical link. They conquered Korea, and began to completely subjugate the country, forcing the Koreans to support their armies. They also tried to force their Japanese culture on the Koreans. Everyone was forced to speak Japanese. They were forced to give their children Japanese names. One of the many things that became obligatory for the Koreans was to worship at the Shinto shrines. Each shrine contained a picture of the Japanese emperor and a picture of the Japanese sun goddess.

Korean Christians had to make a choice. Refusal to obey would result in arrest, harassment, and financial hardship for the families, because they would be outcasts. Some Christians saw the act of bowing as a sign of respect for the Emperor and merely a political expedient. But many Christians, like Ahn Ei Sook, would not bow to the shrine. Not only was the sun goddess an idol, but by the late 1930’s the emperor had become a divine being to the Japanese. To bow to him would be bowing to another god. Ahn Ei Sook would not compromise. Jesus had said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by Me.” She would follow only Christ.

For more:

Although severely persecuted, she preached righteousness/truth and saw MANY salvations...and even prior to Japan's defeat, had seen others prophesy about it being destroyed by fire--not knowing about what'd happen later with the atomic bomb. Just thought about bringing it up in light of what you mentioned on how they were just as evil (i.e. those who were militaristic) was the Nazis were---and yet not many saw that since so much focus was on Germany.

In many ways, its sad whenever so much focus does occur upon Germany since there was SO Much happening around the world---and sadly, corruption even within the nations that were fighting against Hitler (As it concerns countries such as the U.S.A in its own racism/hatred). To me, it seems to be a greater tragedy that others felt the U.S somehow "won" simply because they didn't get destroyed like Germany did in its defeat....for even in the event that victory was gained, there was still ALOT that was lost in the process and alot that NEVER got resolved. For even before Hitler continued evils with the Holocaust....one that not only touched the Jews, he also made plans on finding ways to address the blacks as well. And he also persected them immensely just as much as Jews....and later, it turns out that his ideologies were able 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). More on that subject was hared here in #8 and #13 when it came to discussing the subject of Jews of Color'.

Not many raise any fuss about the Black Jews or Afro-Germans (and U.S Black soldiers) who were wiped out by Hitler...but then again, it's not a surprise when seeing the overall climate of the times since being black was not something many were really all that concerned with. And on the issue of where Hitler also was frustrated by blacks from the U.S.A, more was discussed elsewhere in-depth, as seen here:

inconsequential said:
I can understand nationalism in some circumstances because some countries ARE better than others when it comes to culture, beliefs, etc. But racism just doesn't compute for me.

Easy G (G²);59275976 said:

The history of the Olympics is interesting to consider when studying Russia's actions in comparision with what other nations were doing at certain points in history. In example, 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.

...............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

.......when the country you're in is at war with another that may support your ethnic group more than the homeland, how do you respond?

One of the best films on the issue is known as the Tuskagee Airmen, a movie based on the historical account of black pilots in WWII.

The Tuskegee Airmen part 8

.

Click to expand...

May we learn from the past

There are many Allied films which also document much of the "Final Solution". Some, however, are not for the faint spirited. It can, and should, be hard to watch man mistreat his fellow man for something as stupid as "race".

The Nazis hated the Jews because they felt they were an inferior "race", the Japanese felt they were the superior "race". Think about this: they both thought they were superior yet they both lost the war and more. So where do we see arrogance getting us?

I don't see those who hate for racial reasons as "winning".

Deception generally leads people to do the things which are doomed for failure, even if they're convinced in their minds it for the "good of the people" or "for the cause."Sadly, however, to watch what they did can be a struggle as you mentioned with the films.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 27, 2012

MessianicMommy said:
I would LOVE to talk to you about this. As in "talk" not type. So much that typing would just take pages and pages.

Understandable, as I'd love to do the same...for what can be said on page can only go so far.

I can think of a few books that would maybe fill in the blanks some. Sometimes History Channel runs some ZDF/ARD or Spiegel Geschichte made history programs on Germany (1900s-2000s).

Would love to see them some time...

For me, my dad taught a TON of 1920s-1980s German history, so I really only had to fill in the blanks of the before and after of that. I did not know politics, so I had to get a couple books to fill in those blanks. All of them are still in the US. You can only pack so many books in a suitcase with kids clothes around it... and since I had read most of them, I decided for theological books I had not yet covered.

Most of what you find pre-WWI, Weimar republic and then Nazi Germany is the absolute WORST time for Jews in Germany since the Crusades. There was a lot that led up to that, but the main thrust was scape-goating problems from those in a position of authority, to someone else.

I believe Bonhöffer had the right idea. Like the midwives to the Hebrew women in Egypt prior to the Exodus, obey the authority until it hinges on disobeying scripture. And like Moses, if you have to - kill to save another's life.

With what happened with Moses, I'm not fully certain if what he did was ever praised by the Lord---but apart from that, feeling where you're coming from.

History channel ran some great documentaries that were assisted by ZDF/ARD and Spiegel Geschichte (channels here) and a lot of institutes here in Germany and Austria to cover the people who tried to assassinate Hitler and the different methods they used to attempt to achieve their goal. Some were like Bonhöffer, others were military men. My mind is going blank on what the series is called in english, but it runs once in a while on Spiegel Geschichte and the dub over the English always makes it difficult for me to watch. (Do I listen to the very quiet English or the German that runs on top of the English for the interview part?)

Wow....

Purim, Germany and WWII go together rather interestingly. Loads to talk about. Simply loads.

If only we had skype...

Gxg (G²) · Feb 28, 2012

MessianicMommy said:
I believe Bonhöffer had the right idea. Like the midwives to the Hebrew women in Egypt prior to the Exodus, obey the authority until it hinges on disobeying scripture. And like Moses, if you have to - kill to save another's life.

.........Purim, Germany and WWII go together rather interestingly

Interesting to see you take some of the stances you have, as others have often said that to do as the midwives did was nothing more than breaking God's standards since in their view lying is what the Torah condemns...whereas others are of the mindset that the Torah gave allowance for certain things when it came to survival/protecting life. Esther being an interesting example, in light of the actions she took to preserve her people-and the same with others, be it the midwives, Rahab with the spies or many others (As discussed here, here, here, here or as discussed here , here, discussed here and discussed here when the subject of situational ethics came up ).

MessianicMommy · Feb 28, 2012

Well... if you trust traditional stances on the midwives' story, the women were blessed with easy and fast births and they delayed coming until actual labor had started and kind of foot shuffled on down there... and by the time they did arrive, the babies were there. Oops, well, sorry, didn't make it in time. These women just know how to have babies dear pharaoh!

Some ladies really are built for babies and have easy labors...

Given my dad was military, I don't have a lot of problems with some situational ethics. It is kind of like the TV show Burn Notice. I usually know where Michael Weston is headed before I'm 10 minutes in. It's not so predictable I don't like it, but the things he lived through and did - I totally get it.

At first, it was not Bonhöffer's goal to attempt at Hitler's life. It was just to keep teaching the gospel and reaching out. Then it was to help those fleeing Germany as best as possible and gathering info in the UK and USA... but there hit a "no going back" point in Germany that people who saw where things were going, they couldn't just stand by. It was so tough, just an unspeakably scary time to be living in. The Gestapo made the Stasi look like peons. And the Stasi is STILL a major specter here 20+ years after the DDR dissolved!!

Kids literally turned against their family members and were spies, your own family members were possibly spies, as were your neighbors, friends etc. You could not speak your mind or leave anything around that would ever hint you were against the regime.

It was one thing if the muckity mucks way up high in the echelons were listening to swing and jazz, but it was off limits for the regular folks. It was one thing if the muckity mucks were living the high life and drinking and partying and having questionable moral lives - but you could not as a regular person. While homosexuality was the worst thing to be, it happened within the HJ and troops... and for the most part was NOT stopped.

Children were completely brainwashed from kindergarten up. There was just no escaping how they were taught. This also happened in Japan. One of the major ways that assisted that was Manga (Japanese graphic novels)

Germany, Japan and the Allied forces used major propaganda for their advantages. Some of it was absolutely over the top and crazy, and some of it was straight up. Watching some of it this far out is just surreal sometimes.

I think with bad guys like Hitler, Haman, and people around today - it comes to a head where you have to decide if you will join the resistance, or find other ways out before there are attempts on your own life. Like what's happening in Syria, and already did happen in Egypt, and Iraq and Libya recently.

I believe fully in self defense. I'm not sure where I fall sometimes on the attentat situation. It's something that you would just have to really evaluate case by case, situation by situation. Things aren't always so very cut and dry.

ChavaK · Feb 28, 2012

Getting back to the basic question of how far do you go to save a life...we touched on this last week during a class.
The rabbi said "what is the worst thing you can do on Yom Kippur"? The answer of course is not only to eat, but to eat pork.
To condense things, he essentially said that every Jew in every shul in every town and every country in the world would have to eat port on YK to prolong a life, even if it prolonged it for only a minute. That is how precious life is.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 28, 2012

MessianicMommy said:
Well... if you trust traditional stances on the midwives' story, the women were blessed with easy and fast births and they delayed coming until actual labor had started and kind of foot shuffled on down there... and by the time they did arrive, the babies were there. Oops, well, sorry, didn't make it in time. These women just know how to have babies dear pharaoh!

Some ladies really are built for babies and have easy labors...

Seeing some in the amount of children they have, it truly is amazing to see others designed for having as many children as possible...

Within Middle Eastern families, the amount of people having children is a trip...

Given my dad was military, I don't have a lot of problems with some situational ethics. It is kind of like the TV show Burn Notice. I usually know where Michael Weston is headed before I'm 10 minutes in. It's not so predictable I don't like it, but the things he lived through and did - I totally get it.

Definately can see how that'd be the case. My dad loves that show, even though it's not really one of my personal favorites overall...but with things others are shocked at, I do wonder at times how different it'd be if we had lived through it with military life.

At first, it was not Bonhöffer's goal to attempt at Hitler's life. It was just to keep teaching the gospel and reaching out. Then it was to help those fleeing Germany as best as possible and gathering info in the UK and USA... but there hit a "no going back" point in Germany that people who saw where things were going, they couldn't just stand by. It was so tough, just an unspeakably scary time to be living in. The Gestapo made the Stasi look like peons. And the Stasi is STILL a major specter here 20+ years after the DDR dissolved!!

Seeing the progression of Bonhoffer is rather amazing since it makes the man seem more relatable when seeing how he wasn't just "gun happy" when it came to possibly assassinating Hitler. In his era, it was something he wasn't always considering and felt that living a holy life would be the key---but as the pressure intensified, he seemed to show a "do what you gotta do" mindset, even though he made clear that his consideration of taking out Hitler wasn't at all about personal vengence nor was it something that was not necessarily a sin. For him, it was no different than soldiers who go into war..and yet still must ask forgiveness since taking of life through war is still not God's best...and there are consequenes for it (i.e. guilt, post traumatic stress disorder, etc).

But what he ended up doing was necessary in many ways. For some good reviews on the matter:

Bonhoeffer: a guide for the perplexed - Google Books Result
Detrich Bonhoeffer: reality and resistance - Google Books Result

On Bonhoeffers actions and his resistance, even from a secular perspective, the way Hitler came into power wasn't simple either. For as many people often say "Hitler just had WAY too much power and needed to be taken out!!!!", it does seem that there are some key facts that often seem to be left alone. In example, it is established that Hitler's rise to power was far from clean and just...and he threatened and cheated his way into power often:

At the point of the "Enabling Act" in 1933 it appears that some sort of armed resistance might have been just in an effort to overthrow Hitler. What is very disturbing to consider with the history of the resistance to the Third Reich is the fact that a large segment of the military was ready and willing to take over and oust Hitler if they got foreign support to do it, particularly from England, especially before WWII. Unlike in 1944, staging a coup in 1938 would probably have been successful and the military could have taken out Hitler alongside his top minions. What the British response was at first could be summed up as being a total lack of interest.... and that policy continued throughout the war in terms of helping the German resistance. Only AFTER Hitler got too big to handle did become decide to raise arms/say "He has to be stopped!!!!"

In many ways, much of the world was responsible for the rise of a Hitler. And for a humorous illustration:

lil hitler

It's rather sad to see how there was some support for Hitler in Great Britain (and the USA for that matter prior to the start of WW2--especially if seeing the actions of other prominent Eugenicists around the world who did conferences on the issue of "population control" and supported Hitler just as he did them....Margret Sanger being an example.

From a political standpoint, it turns out that Hitler was seen as the sole resistance against the Communist threat....an issue which many in the U.S were bothered by since many ended up turning their backs against capitalism in their days and turning toward communism. More was shared here in #63 on that issue. It should not be forgotten that the German people, swept up in patriotic nationalism, wanted to see the wrongs of WW1 corrected...and they saw in Hitler a leader who could deliver and make their nation great.

Kids literally turned against their family members and were spies, your own family members were possibly spies, as were your neighbors, friends etc. You could not speak your mind or leave anything around that would ever hint you were against the regime.

It was one thing if the muckity mucks way up high in the echelons were listening to swing and jazz, but it was off limits for the regular folks. It was one thing if the muckity mucks were living the high life and drinking and partying and having questionable moral lives - but you could not as a regular person. While homosexuality was the worst thing to be, it happened within the HJ and troops... and for the most part was NOT stopped.

That much pressure has to be unbearable at times, especially when you don't know who to trust and what is coming your way. To see family turned against one another is very grieving indeed.

Children were completely brainwashed from kindergarten up. There was just no escaping how they were taught. This also happened in Japan. One of the major ways that assisted that was Manga (Japanese graphic novels)

It's rather amazing to consider how much mess seems to happen with Japanese graphic novels to this day...alot of it being flat out pornagraphic.

The ways the Chinese used it in the 1950s and before is very interesting as well....and the ways that Germany often showed pictures of differing ethnic groups is rather amazing since it brings out the point that media is never just media. There is a coercive nature to images and depictions of events or people that simply cannot be ignored whenever it comes to the descriptions of groups that people see....no more different than today when seeing just how much people are influenced by media.

Visual conditioning that trains people gradually to be prone toward accepting certain ideologies that are directly counter to what the Bible says. It gets rather sobering when seeing the many ways that even things like WWII with America's involvement is suspect on a HOST of levels when seeing the many ways that war was a money-making event....and how much of the media was used to charge others up for battle.

Although I don't agree with all aspects of certain documentaries that call for others not to trust all forms of authority, I do think that there's something to be said whenever it comes to certain countries solely portraying themselves as flawless while everyone else is the victim---and that is something that neither the AXIS powers nor the Allies were free from.....nor is it something that has ceased happening today when seeing the many ways that nations still distract others with the use of media--and many of the wars that develop are simply "smoke & mirrors" to distract others from larger goals others may have...or distracting others from where they themselves may've CAUSED a problem to arise that they blame others for.

More was discussed here in #67 and #70, in regards to how much propoganda occurs in the name of patriotism/doing one's duty. More was also shared in #74 and #101 ... and for an excellent series on the subject of where media indoctrination seems to be occurring today just as it was with countries from the era of WWII (especially in regards to people being focused on entertainment or profit):

TerrorStorm Full"
Hollywood Unmasked! PT.1of 2
HOLLYWOOD UNMASKED volume one
Hollywood Unmasked! PT. 2 of 2
Zeitgeist - Part 3: Don't Mind The Men Behind The Curtain
Zeitgeist: The Movie (HD) Part III - Men Behind the Curtain
ZEITGEIST-The U.S. Government IS NOT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT IN SCHOOL!

Germany, Japan and the Allied forces used major propaganda for their advantages. Some of it was absolutely over the top and crazy, and some of it was straight up. Watching some of it this far out is just surreal sometimes.

Surreal is truly a good word for it...

I think with bad guys like Hitler, Haman, and people around today - it comes to a head where you have to decide if you will join the resistance, or find other ways out before there are attempts on your own life. Like what's happening in Syria, and already did happen in Egypt, and Iraq and Libya recently.

Good points...

I believe fully in self defense. I'm not sure where I fall sometimes on the attentat situation. It's something that you would just have to really evaluate case by case, situation by situation. Things aren't always so very cut and dry.

It truly is something to always be in prayer about when it comes to personal decisions.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 28, 2012

ChavaK said:
Getting back to the basic question of how far do you go to save a life...we touched on this last week during a class.
The rabbi said "what is the worst thing you can do on Yom Kippur"? The answer of course is not only to eat, but to eat pork.

To condense things, he essentially said that every Jew in every shul in every town and every country in the world would have to eat port on YK to prolong a life, even if it prolonged it for only a minute. That is how precious life is.

Very interesting analogy, as it concerns considering even breaking kosher if it meant ensuring that a life was sparred.

ChavaK · Feb 28, 2012

Easy G (G²);59920672 said:
Very interesting analogy, as it concerns considering even breaking kosher if it meant ensuring that a life was sparred.

Not only is it permitted, it is required to break a mitzvah in order to save a life.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 28, 2012

MessianicMommy said:
It was one thing if the muckity mucks way up high in the echelons were listening to swing and jazz, but it was off limits for the regular folks. It was one thing if the muckity mucks were living the high life and drinking and partying and having questionable moral lives - but you could not as a regular person. While homosexuality was the worst thing to be, it happened within the HJ and troops... and for the most part was NOT stopped.

.

Curious as to what "HJ" means, as I wasn't certain as to what you were meaning...

I think with bad guys like Hitler, Haman, and people around today - it comes to a head where you have to decide if you will join the resistance, or find other ways out before there are attempts on your own life. Like what's happening in Syria, and already did happen in Egypt, and Iraq and Libya recently.

I do wonder still how to address what certain scriptures note when it comes to choosing whether to resist or to stand:

I Peter 2

11 Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul. 12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.

Submission to Rulers and Masters

13 Submit yourselves for the Lords sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is Gods will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

22 He committed no sin,

and no deceit was found in his mouth.[e]

23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Peter's ideology of government is something that does seem very direct when it comes to submission to authorities--with it seeming to be the case that he made no qualifications as to what kind of government he felt that others were to submit to...although others have debated often on the issue, in light of how to see the Sovereignty of the Lord and how scriptures seem to praise the many instances where submission was not to be done if one was called to disobey scriptural commands.

Saw a sermon recently on the subject of what it means to be honorable because of how we are honorable rather than because others are, in regards to unjust rulers/leaders. For more, one can go here:

On Earth as it is In Heaven 12 02 11pm Sam Hinn

I'm still amazed at the examples of others who never chose to resist corrupt reigns in violent manners...choosing still to honor the ones ruling while not taking physical action toward them. And although others could have said that they were in collaboration with the enemy, they did things honorably/made much difference for the kingdom. Some seeking to serve the Lords people WITHIN the enemy camp rather than taking out the enemy....like a Daniel or an Obadiah. In the case of Obadiah, Elijah did do a physical confrontation with King Ahab later on....killing the prophets of Baal that Jezebel had risen up in her process of killing off the saints....but it still seems noteworthy to see where someone was WITHIN the system doing what they were charged by the Lord to do in a manner that didn't involve trying to kill Ahab. I wonder about that in light of others who did the same in the times of Hitler when he ruled....for how interesting it is if others were deemed to not be doing "enough" if they were not for all out physical resistment/fighting. and As another noted best on the subject:

Consider, in the first place, Daniel, who worked virtually the entirety of his adult life in the Babylonian court. He was, in other words, an agent of the government that had enslaved his people, destroyed the temple in Jerusalem, and exploited what remained of his homeland as a client state. One has only to read Daniel to realize how little regard for the living God there was in Babylon and how utterly indifferent that state was to either the interests of the Jews or those of other subject peoples. Daniels situation psychologically was like what would have been the situation of an American who had been captured and put to work in the Soviet government during the Cold War.

But more interesting still is the case of Obadiah, not the prophet by that name but the court official during the reign of Ahab, King of Israel. In 1 Kings 18:2-4 we read:

Now the famine was severe in Samaria, and Ahab summoned Obadiah, who was in charge of his palace. Obadiah was a devout believer in the Lord. [The NIVs devout believer is literally, Obadiah feared the Lord greatly.]

Now we naturally wonder how in the world a godly man the Bible tells us he was a godly man could possibly have worked in the court of a king as corrupt as Ahab and with a queen like Jezebel doing her best thoroughly to integrate the pagan worship of her homeland into the practice of both the court and the nation as a whole. One of George Washingtons favorite lines this taken from Joseph Addisons drama Cato, written in 1713 wildly popular in Colonial America was When vice prevailsthe post of honor is a private station. [Cited in Richard Brookhiser, Founding Father, 124] But Ahabs reign was a time that vice mightily prevailed and yet Obadiah had the furthest thing from a private station. Ahab had threatened and then actually sought the lives of Yahwehs faithful prophets and, in their place, elevated the prophets of Baal to religious authority in the kingdom. Obadiah had himself hidden 100 of the Lords prophets in two caves and supplied them with food. His boss, Ahab, together with his wife, Jezebel, plotted the murder of Naboth so as to steal his vineyard. We wonder: how could a good man work in such a place, for such employers, and play any role in a government that was so profoundly corrupt. Obviously Obadiah was someone that Ahab considered a faithful and useful employee or he wouldnt have lasted. Nor could he hide in anonymity and save his character by devoting himself to inconsequential labors. He was Ahabs right hand man, as we learn in 1 Kings 18, when, on one particular errand, looking for any remaining grass in the country to support the horses of the king, Ahab went one way and Obadiah the other. He was the first man Ahab thought of when he needed to entrust a serious matter to someone else. Now, it is true that Obadiah worked behind Ahabs back to undo some of the kings plans. He put himself at risk for his principles (as Daniel would later do in refusing to eat the food set before him); but, clearly most of the time he was Ahabs faithful employee. How was this possible?

Im not altogether sure, but the Bible plainly praises Obadiah for his godliness in the context of his work for Ahab, or, perhaps better for maintaining such a godly life in such an atmosphere and in such circumstances. He clearly did not agree with Ahab to the point that he was willing to risk his life to hide the Lords prophets from the king but he also, at the same time, in most respects served the king faithfully.

As so often in its ethical instruction, the Scripture sounds two notes and we are to make a harmony of them. It says two things which seem to point in two different directions, but we are to hold them together and in the tension thus created fall neither to the right (retirement from the world) nor to the left (being corrupted by the world). We have called this characteristic biblical pedagogy dialectical. And it is obvious that the Bibles teaching on the association of believers with unbelievers in their working life is dialectical in just this way.

Gxg (G²) · Feb 28, 2012

ChavaK said:
Not only is it permitted, it is required to break a mitzvah in order to save a life.

So in the event that one such as Esther had to eat unkosher food and remain undercover for some time (years, I believe) in order to be positioned to save the lives of all Jews in existence when Haman rose up, what she did was not to be deemed sin....for saving life was the focus. Even though her choices can be considered as not being the preference in an ideal situation, she worked with what she had (as did Mordecai) and many were saved--in the same way that others such as Bonhöffer or others who chose to resist against the system they were in, all having varying degrees of what they felt was best to do. But for all, saving life was key.

Mr. Donut · Feb 29, 2012

The great value God places on human life is why He placed such a steep price for the one who murders.

Jerushabelle · Feb 29, 2012

ChavaK said:
Getting back to the basic question of how far do you go to save a life...we touched on this last week during a class.
The rabbi said "what is the worst thing you can do on Yom Kippur"? The answer of course is not only to eat, but to eat pork.
To condense things, he essentially said that every Jew in every shul in every town and every country in the world would have to eat port on YK to prolong a life, even if it prolonged it for only a minute. That is how precious life is.

ABSOLUTELY!!! If only we could convince elder care physicians and hospice workers of that!

aniello · Feb 29, 2012

One would think protection of one's family and community might part of the following:

1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Love Your Enemies..unless it's Hitler" : MJism on how far one goes to save life....

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)

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

MessianicMommy

Guest

Active Member

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)

MessianicMommy

Guest

להיות טוב ולעשות טוב

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

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

להיות טוב ולעשות טוב

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

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

Active Member

Well-Known Member

aniello

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency