Rss Feeds

Total news: 415
Last news: 1 hour 11 minutes ago

1 Cor 3:13 ...the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward.

Total news: 40
Last news: September 6, 2010 08:36:30

The UK Guardian’s health editor, Sarah Boseley, wrote the following article with regards to the fact that worldviews has consequences. In this case, literal life and death consequences.

Terminally-ill patients would be well advised to find out the religious beliefs of their doctor, according to research showing the effect of faith on a doctors willingness to make decisions that could hasten death.

^{Doctors who are atheist or agnostic are twice as likely to take decisions that might shorten the life of somebody who is terminally ill as doctors who are deeply religious} – and doctors with strong religious convictions are less likely even to discuss such decisions with the patient, according to Professor Clive Seale, from the centre for health sciences at Barts and the London school of medicine and dentistry.

"If I were a patient facing end of life care, I would want to know what my doctors views were on religious matters – whether they are non-religious or religious and whether the doctor felt that would influence them in the kinds of decisions they were looking at," said Seale.
A patient who wanted their life prolonged at all costs in the event of a terminal illness, or did not want it prolonged, should make sure they had a doctor who was in sympathy with this.

Doctors are influenced by their beliefs, just as other people are, said Seale.
"^{It is easy for clinicians to present themselves as neutral appliers of science, but values do come into it}," he said. That is accepted in abortion care, but the issue has not yet been widely discussed in the care of the dying. "I had a GP who was powerfully committed to not legalising euthanasia," said Seale. He has now changed his GP.

Seales study, published online today in the Journal of Medical Ethics, was based on a survey of doctors in specialisms likely to care for people at the end of life, such as neurology, elderly and palliative care but also general practice. More than 8,500 doctors were contacted and almost 4,000 responded.
The doctors were asked about the care of their last patient who died, if relevant – including whether they had provided continuous deep sedation until death and whether they had discussed decisions judged likely to shorten life with the patient.
They were also asked their religious beliefs, ethnicity, and their views on assisted dying/euthanasia. More than 3,000 described the death of a patient.

Specialists in the care of the elderly were somewhat more likely to be Hindu or Muslim, while palliative care [any form of medical care or treatment that concentrates on reducing the severity of pain, symptoms and stress of serious illness] doctors were somewhat more likely than other doctors to be Christian, white, and agree that they were "religious."
The chances of a doctor making an ethically controversial decision expected or partly intended to end life was largely unrelated to the doctors ethnicity, but was strongly related to his or her specialisation. Specialised doctors in hospitals were almost 10 times as likely to report this than palliative care specialists.

But regardless of their speciality, doctors who described themselves as "extremely" or "very non-religious" were almost twice as likely to report having taken these kinds of decisions as those with a religious belief.
The most religious doctors were significantly less likely than other doctors to have discussed options at the end of life with their patient.1

In my parsed essay Scientific Cenobites I provided a wealth of evidence as to the nature of the manner in which the sciences are practiced. While the ideal as to how they are practiced was intelligently designed to ensure unbiased research and conclusions some take it upon themselves to do their science based on worldviews, professional rivalries, schools of thought, adherence to preferred theories, etc., etc., etc.

1. 1. Sarah Boseley, “Atheist doctors more likely to hasten death - Study finds medics faith affects care of terminally ill, as hospital clinicians admit ethically controversial decisions,” The Guardian, 26 August 2010, copyright Guardian News and Media Limited 2010

Hereinafter are portions of the following article:
David B. Hart, “Believe It or Not [David Hart sees the New Atheism movement going the way of the pet rock],” First Things, p. 35

David B. Hart is the author of, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies

I think I am very close to concluding that this whole "New Atheism" movement is only a passing fad—not the cultural watershed its purveyors imagine it to be, but simply one of those occasional and inexplicable marketing vogues that inevitably go the way of pet rocks, disco, prime-time soaps, and The Bridges of Madison County. This is not because I necessarily think the current "marketplace of ideas" particularly good at sorting out wise arguments from foolish. But the latest trend in à la mode godlessness, it seems to me, has by now proved itself to be so intellectually and morally trivial that it has to be classified as just a form of light entertainment…

Take, for instance, the recently published 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists. Simple probability, surely, would seem to dictate that a collection of essays by fifty fairly intelligent and zealous atheists would contain at least one logically compelling, deeply informed, morally profound, or conceptually arresting argument for not believing in God. Certainly that was my hope in picking it up. Instead, I came away from the whole drab assemblage of preachments and preening feeling rather as if I had just left a large banquet at which I had been made to dine entirely on crushed ice and water vapor…

The quality of the essays is inversely proportionate to the air of authority their authors affect. For this reason, the philosophers—who are no better than their fellow contributors at reasoning, but who have better training in giving even specious arguments some appearance of systematic form—tend to come off as the most insufferable contributors…

Christine Overall notes that her prayers as a child were never answered; ergo, there is no God…

Adele Mercier…believers do not really believe what they think they believe…

The journalist Emma Tom had a psychotic scripture teacher when she was a girl…

The whole project probably reaches its reductio ad ahsurdum when the science-fiction writer Sean Williams explains that he learned to reject supernaturalism in large part from having grown up watching Doctor Who…

On these last points it may be informative to read Lewis Wolpert - Still a Child at Heart and The Argument for Atheism from Immaturity

What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose ones conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

But how long can any soul delight in victories of that sort? And how long should we waste our time with the sheer banality of the New Atheists—with. that is, their childishly Manichean view of history, their lack of any tragic sense, their indifference to the cultural contingency of moral "truths," their wanton incuriosity, their vague babblings about "religion" in the abstract, and their absurd optimism regarding the future they long for?...

I came to realize that the whole enterprise, when purged of its hugely preponderant alloy of sanctimonious bombast, is reducible to only a handful of arguments, most of which consist in simple category mistakes or the kind of historical oversimplifications that are either demonstrably false or irrelevantly true. And arguments of that sort are easily dismissed, if one is hardy enough to go on pointing out the obvious with sufficient indefatigability…

And only a complete failure to grasp the most basic philosophical terms of the conversation could prompt this strange inversion of logic, by which the argument from infinite regress—traditionally and correctly regarded as the most powerful objection to pure materialism—is now treated as an irrefutable argument against belief in Cod.
But something worse than mere misunderstanding lies at the base of Dawkins own special version of the argument from infinite regress—a version in which he takes a pride of almost maternal fierceness. Any "being," he asserts, capable of exercising total control over the universe would have to be an extremely complex being, and because we know that complex beings must evolve from simpler beings and that the probability of a being as complex as that evolving is vanishingly minute, it is almost certain that no Cod exists. Q.E.D.
But, of course, this scarcely rises to the level of nonsense.
We can all happily concede that no complex, ubiquitous, omniscient, and omnipotent superbeing, inhabiting the physical cosmos and subject to the rules of evolution, exists. But who has ever suggested the contrary?

Numerous attempts have been made, by the way, to apprise Dawkins of what the traditional definition of divine simplicity implies, and of how it logically follows from the very idea of transcendence, and to explain to him what it means to speak of Cod as the transcendent fullness of actuality, and how this differs in kind from talk of quantitative degrees of composite complexity. But all the evidence suggests that Dawkins has never understood the point being made, and it is his unfortunate habit contemptuously to dismiss as meaningless concepts whose meanings elude him. Frankly, going solely on the record of his published work, it would be rash to assume that Dawkins has ever learned how to reason his way to the end of a simple syllogism….

His sporadic forays into philosophical argument suggest not only that he has sailed into unfamiliar waters, but also that he is simply not very interested in any of it. His occasional observations on Hume and Kant make it obvious that he has not really read either very closely. He apparently believes that Nietzsche, in announcing the death of Cod, literally meant to suggest that the supreme being named God had somehow met his demise. The title of one of the chapters in God Is Not Great is "The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False," but nowhere in that chapter does Hitchens actually say what those claims or their flaws are.
On matters of simple historical and textual fact, moreover, Hitchens book is so extraordinarily crowded with errors that one soon gives up counting them…

He conflates the histories of the first and fourth crusades. He repeats as fact the long discredited myth that Christians destroyed the works of Aristotle and Lucretius, or systematically burned the books of pagan antiquity, which is the very opposite of what did happen. He speaks of the traditional hostility of "religion" (whatever that may be) to medicine, despite the monastic origins of the modern hospital and the involvement of Christian missions in medical research and medical care from the fourth century to the present. He tells us that countless lives were lost in the early centuries of the Church over disputes regarding which gospels were legitimate (the actual number of lives lost is zero). He asserts that Myles Coverdale and John Wycliffe were burned alive at the stake, although both men died of natural causes. He knows that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are a late addition to the text, but he imagines this means that the entire account of the Resurrection is as well. He informs us that it is well known that Augustine was fond of the myth of the Wandering Jew, though Augustine died eight centuries before the legend was invented. And so on and so on (and so on)…Hitchens gets almost all the particular details extravagantly wrong…

As best I can tell, Hitchens case against faith consists mostly in a series of anecdotal enthymemes—that is to say, syllogisms of which one premise has been suppressed.
Unfortunately, in each case it turns out to be the major premise that is missing, so it is hard to guess what links the minor premise to the conclusion. One need only attempt to write out some of his arguments in traditional syllogistic style to see the difficulty:

Major Premise: [omitted]
Minor Premise: Evelyn Waugh was always something of a bastard, and his Catholic chauvinism often made him even worse.
Conclusion: "Religion" is evil.

Or:

Major Premise: [omitted]
Minor Premise: There are many bad men who are Buddhists.
Conclusion: All religious claims are false.

Or:

Major Premise: [omitted]
Minor Premise: Timothy Dwight opposed smallpox vaccinations.
Conclusion: There is no God…

[Friedrich Nietzsche’s] intellectual courage—his willingness to confront the implications of his renunciation of the Christian story of truth and the transcendent good without evasions or retreats—is rather a lot to ask of any other thinker, but it does rather make the atheist chic of today look fairly craven by comparison.

Above all, Nietzsche understood how immense the consequences of the rise of Christianity had been, and how immense the consequences of its decline would be as well, and had the intelligence to know he could not fall back on polite moral certitudes to which he no longer had any right. Just as the Christian revolution created a new sensibility by inverting many of the highest values of the pagan past, so the decline of Christianity, Nietzsche knew, portends another, perhaps equally catastrophic shift in moral and cultural consciousness. His famous fable in The Gay Science of the madman who announces Gods death is anything but a hymn of atheist triumphalism.

In fact, the madman despairs of the mere adieists—those who merely do not believe—to whom he addresses his terrible proclamation. In their moral contentment, their ease of conscience, he sees an essential oafishness; they do not dread the death of God because they do not grasp that humanitys heroic and insane act of repudiation has sponged away the horizon, torn down the heavens, left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become.

Because he understood the nature of what had happened when Christianity entered history with the annunciation of the death of God on the cross, and the elevation of a Jewish peasant above all gods, Nietzsche understood also that the passing of Christian faith permits no return to pagan naivete, and he knew that this monstrous inversion of values created within us a conscience that the older order could never have incubated.

He understood also that the death of God beyond us is the death of the human as such within us. If we are, after all, nothing but the fortuitous effects of physical causes, then the will is bound to no rational measure but itself, and who can imagine what sort of world will spring up from so unprecedented and so vertiginously uncertain a vision of reality?

As for Nietzsche “knew that this monstrous inversion of values created within us a conscience that the older order could never have incubated” see: The Deicidal and Misanthropic Prophecies

For Nietzsche, therefore, the future that lies before us must be decided, and decided between only two possible paths: a final nihilism, which aspires to nothing beyond the momentary consolations of material contentment, or some great feat of creative will, inspired by a new and truly worldly mythos powerful enough to replace the old and discredited mythos of the Christian revolution (for him, of course, thus meant the myth of the Ubermensch).
Perhaps; perhaps not. Where Nietzsche was almost certainly correct, however, was in recognizing that mere formal atheism was not yet the same thing as true unbelief. As he writes in The Cay Science,

"Once the Buddha was dead, people displayed his shadow for centuries afterwards in a cave, an immense and dreadful shadow. God is dead: —but as the human race is constituted, there will perhaps be caves for millennia yet where people will display his shadow. And we—we have yet to overcome his shadow!"

It may appear that Nietzsche is here referring to "persons of faith"—those poor souls who continue to make their placid, bovine trek to church every week to worship a God who passed away long ago—but that is not his meaning.
He is referring principally to those who think they have eluded God simply by ceasing to believe in his existence. For Nietzsche, "scientism"—the belief that the modern scientific method is the only avenue of truth, one capable of providing moral truth or moral meaning—is the worst dogmatism yet, and the most pathetic of all metaphysical nostalgias. And it is, in his view, precisely men like the New Atheists, clinging as they do to those tenuous vestiges of Christian morality that they have absurdly denominated "humanism," who shelter themselves in caves and venerate shadows.
As they do not understand the past, or the nature of the spiritual revolution that has come and now gone for
Western humanity, so they cannot begin to understand the peril of the future…

To conclude; it may be of interest to consider the following essays:
Friedrich Nietzsche Nails Atheism, Again

Friedrich Nietzsche Nails the Freedom From Religion Foundation

Friedrich Nietzsche Nails Richard Dawkins

In keeping with the very reason that the New Atheist movement has discredited itself and is conceptually dead—their unwillingness to take on Islam (see elucidation of this point at this link)—I wonder…oh, how I wonder…

I wonder if any atheists anywhere, specifically and especially the New celebrity Atheists have made any comments at all on the fact that Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi claims that Extramarital sex leads to earthquakes:

Tehran, Apr 17: An Iranian cleric has proclaimed that inappropriately dressed women leading to extramarital affairs are the reasons behind the devastating earthquakes that frequently rattle the country.

Speaking to worshippers at the Friday prayers here on Apr 16, senior cleric Ayatollah Kazem Sedighi said, "Many women who dress inappropriately ... cause youths to go astray, taint their chastity and incite extramarital sex in society, which increases earthquakes."

"Calamities are the result of peoples deeds...We have no way but conform to Islam to ward off dangers," the religious leader is quoted as saying in newspaper reports.

The Islamic laws prescribe a strict dress code for women. Females are expected to cover hair and bodily contours in public or face punishment and fine.

However, the cleric was probably referring to the women who appear on the streets with well-fitted clothes and layers of make-up as the evil forces behind the natural calamities.

Let Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or the likes say such a thing and atheists are all over it like an elephant in musth but let a Muslim say it and…and nothing; let’s just keep bashing Christianity!

Consider one small example as Richard Dawkins wrote the following in The God Delusion (pp. 301-302):

In illustration of the dark side of absolutism, I mentioned the Christians in America who blow up abortion clinics, and the Taliban of Afghanistan, whose list of cruelties, especially to women, I find too painful to recount.

An entire book that bashes Christianity but as for Islam or even the Taliban in particular: side step and wipe brow (for a dissection of Dawkins’ folly on this point, see George Tiller, Abortionist Murders, and the Richard Dawkins Correlation).

Well done Brian!

Brian of the most excellent blog Apologetics 315 masterminded the project "Is Christianity True?"

The project consisted of 31 segments (23 essays) written by 31 personages (including yours truly).

Brian has just posted the e-book of the entire series:

The essays are listed at this link by date, author and title.

At this link you can find the e-book to which I will link here in its various formats:
Kindle version
Mobi
ePub
PDF

Lastly, you can find the podcast of the entire series at this link.

Brian of Apologetics 315 has posted a great book review of the book "Science & Its Limits: The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective" by Del Ratzsch.

As Dan Brown and the New Atheists have done; Roland Emmerich compliments Christianity. Roland Emmerich is the director of the new movie 2012.

I must say that the concept of 2012 AD has been fascinating to me for at least as far back as 17 years when I used to do a lot of reading about the Mayans and even made a t-shirt with the numbers 2012 written out in Mayan characters.

Thus, I have known for a long time that as we approached the year 2012 a lot of attention would be drawn to the New Age movement and the occult—all in various forms. I would not even be the least bit surprised if some Christian or another proclaims that Jesus will return in 2012 because this half a verse says this, that obscure reference implies that, add the distance from the Washington Monument to the closest shoe store with the circumference of the Moon and bada bing—oi vey, I can really hear it already.

If you have seen commercials for this movie there is obviously a lot of destruction in view as was the case with Emmerich’s other movies such as “Independence Day,” “Godzilla” and “The Day After Tomorrow.”

When asked “Why do you like killing the world?” he stated, “It makes for a good story.”[1] In his stories he has destroyed the White House twice, “I think my favorite in this one is like the White House destruction.”

The huge statue Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil disintegrates as it falls into pieces which was included in the movie, as Roland Emmerich puts it, “Because Im against organized religion.”[2]
AMEN to that! Although, I wonder why disorganized religion is any better—probably the appeal of lack of accountability.

Well, if he will destroy a statue of Jesus because he is against organized religion we are surely in for quite a ride: watch out EVERY organized religion, the movie 2012 is sure to crush your sacred symbols!
By the way; note the obvious in that regardless of the fictional story’s premise he give voice to his personal prejudice.

The Vatican’s Sistine Chapel takes a hit:

I always try to come up with what makes sense for the story, you know?...And its not only about the destruction. It has to kind of stand for something. One of my favorite pieces of art is Michelangelos Sistine Chapel: ... God ... reaches out to Adam, and the crack goes through it. Its just an interesting kind of notion.”

And you thought that this was a natural disaster sort of movie. Nay! This is a theological movie or rather, anti-theological.
Incidentally, I wrote a commentary on “The Creation of Adam.”
Let’s see; that is two for (or against) Christianity and zero for anyone else…what is next?

The Vatican is up again as this time St. Peters Basilica not only goes bye-bye but the massive dome crushes a crowd of churchgoers:

Why ... dont [we] have the church fall on peoples head?...The whole Vatican kind of tips and kind of rolls over the people. It said something, because in the story, some people ... believe in praying and prayer, and they pray in front of the church, and its probably the wrong thing, what they would do in that situation.

Ok, so we are at three anti-Christian and oh yeah, one anti-American. Surely in the name of diversity other religions and governments will get theirs…let us see.

Well, apparently at least one Buddhist monk get it:

Ah, yes, here we go: the Kaaba in Mecca to which Muslims (who are physically capable) are enjoined to travel at least once in their lifetime during the Hajj; what happens to the Kaaba?:

Well, I wanted to do that [destroy it], I have to admit…But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said, “I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie.” And he was right…We have to all, in the western world, think about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So its just something which I kind of didnt [think] was [an] important element, anyway, in the film, so I kind of left it out.

Oh, I see now; this is the Rushdie vs. Brown effect:
For writing a novel about Islam, “The Satanic Verses,” Salman Rushdie gained a death sentence and many people were murdered, hurt and terrorized. For writing a novel about Christianity, “The Da Vinci Code” et al., Dan Brown gained instant celebrity, millions of dollars, thousands of adoring fans and further contracts to write anti-Christian tales.

But what does “in the western world” mean?
It means in nations premised upon and functioning according to Judeo-Christian principles.
But what does “You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart” mean?
It means that you can purposefully set out to make them fall apart which means that you are purposefully destroying them.
Christians may say, “So what? It’s a movie” or “Shame on him” or “I will pray for him” or “I will not go see the movie” or “I will hold up signs in protest” while he still becomes a filthy rich celebrity.

And here I speak as a Judeo-Christian iconoclast. Whilst working at a Roman Catholic church I was once asked to place a vase of flowers before a statue of Mary. I stated, “I can’t do that” to which the response was to just set it down there. I discerned that perhaps they thought I was stating that I lacked some sort of physical capability and so stated, “My Jewish ancestors chose to die before honoring images, I can’t do it” (just in case, I have written about how to deal with the concept of not making/honoring images).

When Jesus stated that the location (in that case a juxtaposition of Jerusalem and Samaria) was not relevant since God is worshipped in spirit I realized that there are no such things as true “sacred sites” (see his conversation in John ch. 4).

Thus, just as Dan Brown compliments Christianity by besmirching it exclusively, Roland Emmerich follows along gaining celebrity and wealth in the rubble of Christian symbols.

Of course, the New Atheists have likewise turned away from the radical Islam to which they each point as the 9/11 fuel that fed the fires of their unbelief. Rather, via a “brilliant” insight by Sam Harris, they chose to sit in the safety and comfort of countries premised upon Judeo-Christian principles and besmirch moderate Christians. Why take on the Ayatollah, Al Qaeda, and extremist Muslims worldwide and do so on their own turf when you can when you can become a wealthy celebrity in Christian countries whilst taking on the true malice and evil of Jerry Falwell, the Pope, the Bishop of Canterbury, etc.? (details here).

Here is what I have to say to Brown, Emmerich, New Atheists, et al.; you are welcome, I love you and may God richly bless you.

[1] Jonathan Crow, “The One Place on Earth Not Destroyed in 2012,” November 3, 2009
[2] Patrick Lee, “What even Roland Emmerich wont destroy: an Islamic landmark,” Sci Fi Wire, November 2, 2009

I suppose that I just do not get the big to do about the new “3-D movies” (actually, they are coming back into fad via new technology).

It is not just that I watched Avatar in 3-D and it kind of bothered my eyes.

My issue is that ALL movies are in 3-D. Since the beginning, since the silent era, they have all been in 3-D.

All movies consist of 1: length, 2: width and 3:…

At least since the 1930s AD via the General Theory of Relativity we have known that time is a dimension and all movies also consist of 3: time.

What the big to do about the new 3-D movies is that they also consist of 4: depth.

Thus, the new movies are not in 3-D but 4-D.

Waterproof • Durable • Environmental • Long-Lasting Perfect for Hunters, Outdoorsmen, Anglers and Trappers Able to be written in with a ball point pen or a dry highlighter The Waterproof Bible will give you the freedom and inspiration to take God’s Word with you wherever life takes you. Combined with today’s most read and trusted [...] - [Read more]

There is something to be said about not beating a dead horse. However, sometimes the horse is merely playing possum.
Nazi propaganda is alive and well and there are certain atheists which are on the forefront of promulgating it in their anti-Christian zeal.

About.com advertizes itself as “Guidance. Not Guesswork,” “We’ll help you,” and seeks to do that via “750 experts here to help you…”

Moreover, their Reader Promises state, in part: “About.com works to exceed our users highest expectations. Each of our Guides makes the following promises to our audience:” with point 1. Being “Well provide you with accurate, engaging content. Like a friendly neighbor, well give you frank advice that you can trust. [emphasis in original].”
Where then is the accountability? The standard? The rigor in guaranteeing accuracy?

Well, let us first view the information in question which is presented by one of About.com’s atheists in residence, as it where, named Austin Cline. In his article Adolf Hitler on God: Quotes from Adolf Hitler Expressing Belief & Faith in God which is subtitled, “Adolf Hitler had Faith in God that His Agenda was Divinely Ordained” Austin Cline writes:

If Adolf Hitler was an atheist, why did he keep saying that he believed in God, had faith in God, and was convinced that he was doing Gods work? Adolf Hitler was not just certain that his attacks on Jews were divinely mandated, but also his efforts to clamp down on society by restoring traditional morality. Christian apologists only seem to claim that Hitler was an atheist because they cannot handle the idea that a Christian theist would cause so much evil in the name of their God.

As we go on I will reproduce the quotes by Hitler but I first wanted to deal with the issue in and of itself.
Note the premise of the entire article “If Adolf Hitler was an atheist…” I am personally prepared to argue that Hitler was not a Christian but I would not, outright, argue that he was an atheist. His ideas of “God” may have been diluted, and deluded, enough that he might as well have been an atheist. His worldview was certainly mechanistic and (at least softly) materialistic, he certainly held to a Darwinian view of life and progress (as we will see in the past segment of this essay). But he likely held to some idea of God as force which was expressed through Aryan/Norse/Pagan mythology and whose will was the purity of Aryan-Germans and the restoration of German to greatness (I detailed my opinion on this at this link). Although, Hitler’s biographer says of him and he is “a man who believed neither in God nor in conscience.”

It is actually regardless of the premise of whether Hitler was an atheist that articles such as Austin Cline’s demonstrate the fact that Nazi propaganda is still as alive and well as it ever was. Yet, it is not alive and well because it was so finely crafted but because there are people who still want to fall for it—they want to accept it and keep on popularizing it because it is self-servingly convenient to their polemic—to their anti-Christian prejudice.

Reductio ad Gottum
Let us delve into the reductio ad Gottum (“Gott” is German for “God”) and consider the argument which asserts that if Hitler referenced God then he must have been a theist and since he was baptized as a Roman Catholic he was a Christian theist influenced by the Bible and Jesus.

Now, what is the answer to the question, “If Adolf Hitler was an atheist, why did he keep saying that he believed in God…?” If they only answer of which you can conceive is that Hitler was such a fine, upstanding and honest individual that he must have been telling the truth and if he said it he must have believed it, you are in danger of falling for the propaganda. And this is the power of the atheists who make such arguments; they believe what Hitler stated and urge others to do likewise.
Do you really believe anything that anyone states? Did you not go on to wonder what Hitler meant by “God”? Who is this “God” to which he referred? What was Hitler’s specific theology? Etc.
Let us try this one out for size; I can prove that Charles Darwin was a Creationist, after all he wrote:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Behold, Charles Darwin was a creationist (and Richard Dawkins would therefore refuse to debate him). Nay, it is well known that Charles Darwin wrote of the Creator in order to appease his wife and his society; something which he later regretted doing (see this link).
In fact, we could claim that Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, et al, are theists as they made various references to “God” (at least Hawking attends Christian church services regularly).

Joe Keysor notes:

Hitler also wrote of gods and goddesses proving, if all of his religious utterances are taken at face value, that he was a polytheist. “The gods” are referred to in Mein Kampf-“the manifestations of decay showed only that the gods had willed Austrias destruction” [vol. I chapt. 3]-and there are references to goddesses as well: to the Goddess of Suffering [vol. I chapt. 2] and the Goddess of Destiny [vol. I chapt.S]. There is even a “goddess of eternal justice and inexorable retribution” which Hitler believed “caused Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the most mortal enemy of Austrian- Germanism, to fall by the bullets which he himself had helped to mold” [vol I chapt.1].There is also a Goddess of Peace and a God of War. More significantly, there are numerous references to Fate. For those unfamiliar with religion and philosophy, “Fate” is a non-Christian term referring not to the personal God of the Bible but to an impersonal force of unknown character. This should not have to be explained.[1]

As a Christian apologist I wish to respond to the assertion that we apologists “only seem to claim that Hitler was an atheist because they cannot handle the idea that a Christian theist would cause so much evil in the name of their God.” To reiterate, I do not claim that Hitler was an atheist and such claims give rise to deceptive article’s such as Austin Cline’s.
I will rephrase the assertion thusly, Christian apologist only seem to deny that Hitler was a Christian because they cannot handle the idea that a Christian theist would cause so much evil in the name of their God. Firstly, I argue that Hitler was not a Christian for various reasons three of which are that, regardless of his words, his worldview was not Christian, he was virulently anti-Christian, and his actions were not Christian “you will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16); see my essay Hitler the Christian? and Hitler the Anti-Christian!

Also, technically if the God of Christianity promulgates as one of His greatest commandments that we ought to love our neighbor and Hitler took it upon himself to murder 12,000,000 of his neighbors we may begin to suspect that, regardless of his words, he most certainly did not cause so much evil in the name of the Christian God. To affirm and promulgate that Hitler did so in the name of the Christian God is to grant Hitler an ability which he did not possess; the ability to change theology. Thus, Hitler could have claimed anything at all but if he did claim to murder 12,000,000 people in the name of the Christian God his actions were a non-sequitur from that God’s theology.

Understand that when someone claims to do unbiblical, in this case un-Christian, things such as murdering 12,000,000 people I, as a Christian, can condemn them in absolute terms by appealing to absolute standards. If, for example, an atheist sought to condemn atheist Communists for their hundreds of millions of murders, to what do they appeal? Nothing besides their borrowed Christina ethic whereby, via their personal preferences, they impotently argue from outrage. Someone claiming a Christian premise for their action who actually violates the Christian ethic violates that upon which their claim to a Christian premise is based in the first place. Someone claiming an atheistic, God-free, premise for their action never violates anything as it is impossible to violate something when there is nothing to violate.

Consider that Austin Cline provided 19 quotes of Hitler: 13 from Mein Kampf, 3 from speeches dated 1933 and 3 from speeches dated 1936. Hitler lived 1889-1945, published Mein Kampf in 1925-1926 and was in power 1933–1945.
From merely considering these dates we can readily discern why many atheists, such as Austin Cline, prefer to quote the early Hitler as the early Hitler, at least publicly, was not the same as the latter Hitler. The Hitler who is generally quoted is Hitler the consummate politician who is seeking to appeal to the general populous and is playing on their interests and heartstrings. The Hitler of the mid 1920s in Mein Kampf, the Hitler of 1933 when he first came to power was obviously seeking the approval and support of the hoi polloi.

Hitler - 1936
Let us go even as late as the Hitler of 1936 and consider the quote that Cline provided:

15. Adolf Hitler: Going Where God Wills
I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker. - Adolf Hitler, Speech, March 15, 1936, Munich, Germany

…

18. Adolf Hitler: Fighting for the Lords Work
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work. - Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936

19. Adolf Hitler in Conversation with Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber
The Catholic Church should not deceive herself: if National Socialism does not succeed in defeating Bolshevism, then Church and Christianity in Europe too are finished. Bolshevism is the mortal enemy of the Church as much as of Fascism. ...Man cannot exist without belief in God. The soldier who for three and four days lies under intense bombardment needs a religious prop. - Adolf Hitler in conversation with Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Bavaria, November 4, 1936

In the next segment we will consider each in turn.

[1] Joey Keysor, Hitler, the Holocaust and the Bible (Athanatos Publishing Group: pre-release review ed., 2009), p. 95

We will not consider each of the quotes that I provided in the previous segment:
I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker.
What providence? Who’s providence? Anyone who knows Adolf Hitler knows that the answer is “Hitler’s ‘providence.’” To Hitler, “God” was that which approved of and guided his actions, “Jesus” was not a Jew, the “Bible” was Jewish propaganda that was to be replaced by Mein Kampf, etc. Consider the following quote:

In a speech at Munich in 193,6 he said, ‘I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker’, and his biographer says of him:

It was in this sense of mission that Hitler, a man who believed neither in God nor in conscience (‘a Jewish invention, a blemish like circumcision’), found both justification and absolution. He was the Siegfried come to reawaken Germany to greatness, for whom morality, suffering and ‘the litany of private virtues’ were irrelevant. It was by such dreams that he sustained the ruthlessness and determination of his own will….Hitler played out his ‘world-historical’ role to the bitter end. But it was this same belief which curtained him into illusion and blinded him to what was actually happening, leading him into that arrogant overestimation of his own genius which brought him to defeat. The sin which Hitler committed was that which the ancient Greeks called hybris, the sin of overweening pride, of believing himself to be more than a man.[1]

Perhaps, in my claim that I see no direct evidence of Hitler being an atheist I will have to consider the words of Hitler very own biographer who claimed that Hitler did not believe in God. In any regard, I claimed that the providence to which Hitler referred was “Hitler’s ‘providence’” and here it is, “he sustained the ruthlessness and determination of his own will.”

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lords work.
This is an argument from personal credulity; he can believe whatever he wants but he is simply wrong. His actions were towards the goal of “warding off the Jews” and this is “fighting for the Lords work.” Yet, what does the New Testament state about the Jews and the Lord’s work?
Here are mere examples:

What advantage then has the Jew…Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God… (Romans 3:1-2).

I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not!...God has not cast away His people…you [Gentile Christians], being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them [the Jews], and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches [the Jews]…Do not be haughty…they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience (gleaned from Romans ch. 11).

As for the “Lord’s work”:

Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent” (John 6:28-29).

The Catholic Church should not deceive herself…Man cannot exist without belief in God….
Indeed, Hitler, the Roman Catholic, sought to protect the Roman Catholic church and thereby promulgate his faith in God. Not so. Need it be pointed out that this was stated to a Cardinal? Is that surprising? Note the other side of the Hitlerian manipulation coin. While General Ludendorff spoke out against the Catholic Church, Hitler stated

I entirely agree with His Excellency…but I need, for the building up of a great political movement, the Catholics of Bavaria just as the Protestants of Prussia, the rest can come later.[2]
He also stated,
The enemies of National Socialism include not only the “Jewish Marxists” and the Catholics but also certain elements of an incorrigible, stupid and reactionary bourgeoisie.[3]

“Yea!” when it is convenient and “Nay!” when it is convenient.

Joe Keysor notes:

…in March of 1937 a papal encyclical (Mil Brennender Sorge) was read in Catholic churches throughout Germany. It objected to the Nazi cult of race, and called for resistance to perversions of Christian doctrine and morality…This encyclical referred directly to the persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany.[4]

Hitler - 1933
Let us now go to the Hitler of 1933 and consider the quote that Austin Cline provided:

14. Adolf Hitler: Doing Justice to God
To do justice to God and our own conscience, we have turned once more to the German Volk. - Adolf Hitler in speech about the need for a moral regeneration of German, February 10, 1933

…

16. Adolf Hitler: May God Bless Us
May divine providence bless us with enough courage and enough determination to perceive within ourselves this holy German space. - Adolf Hitler, Speech, March 24, 1933

17. Adolf Hitler: When We Appear Before God...
We dont ask the Almighty, Lord, make us free!" We want to be active, to work, to work together, so that when the hour comes that we appear before the Lord we can say to him: Lord, you see that we have changed. The German people is no longer a people of dishonor and shame, of self-destructiveness and cowardice. No, Lord, the German people is once more strong in spirit, strong in determination, strong in the willingness to bear every sacrifice. Lord, now bless our battle and our freedom, and therefore our German people and fatherland. - Adolf Hitler, Prayer, May 1, 1933

These are quite simple to review as the common thread which they share, the emphasis, is not God but in each case: Germany and the German people. Hitler’s consuming motivation was not serving God but nation and race: Germany and the Aryans/Germans. “God” what whatever would approve of and assist in purifying Aryan/German blood and restore Germany to greatness.

In the next segment we will consider the quotes from “Mein Kampf.”

[1] Richard Cavendish, The Powers of Evil in Western Religion, Magic and Folk Belief (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), p. 77-78
[2] Geoffrey Pridham, The Rise of Hitler to Power (London: Hart-Davis, MacGibbon, 1973), p. 148
[3] Speech by Hitler, 1 April 1933. David Schoenbaum, Hitler’s Social Revolution: Class and Status in Nazi Germany, 1933-1939, 1997 reprint, p. 65
[4] Joey Keysor, Hitler, the Holocaust and the Bible (Athanatos Publishing Group: pre-release review ed., 2009), p. 87

Hitler - Mein Kampf
Lastly, let us go back to the mid 1920s and consider the quotes that Austin Cline provided from Mein Kampf:

1. Adolf Hitler: Acting According to Gods Will
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

2. Adolf Hitler: Thanking God
Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5

3. Adolf Hitler: Deutschland Über Alles
I had so often sung Deutschland über Alles and shouted Heil at the top of my lungs, that it seemed to me almost a belated act of grace to be allowed to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim the sincerity of this conviction. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5

4. Adolf Hitler: Gods Grace Smiles
Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lords grace smiled on His ungrateful children. - Adolf Hitler reflecting on World War I, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 7

5. Adolf Hitler: Fulfilling Gods Mission
What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8

6. Adolf Hitler: Fate of God
But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10

7. Adolf Hitler: Sin Against the Will of God
In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11

8. Adolf Hitler: Sacrilege Against God
Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1

9. Adolf Hitler: Confidence in God
Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the remaking of the Reich as they call it. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1

10. Adolf Hitler: Gold has Replaced God
It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2

11. Adolf Hitler: Sin Against the Will of God
It doesnt dawn on this depraved bourgeois world that this is positively a sin against all reason; that it is criminal lunacy to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him, while millions of members of the highest culture-race must remain in entirely unworthy positions; that it is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2

12. Adolf Hitler: Creation of God
That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created? - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2

13. Adolf Hitler: Dont Just Talk About Fulfilling Gods Will
The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of Gods will, and actually fulfill Gods will, and not let Gods word be desecrated. For Gods will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lords creation, the divine will. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10

For a basic consideration of Hitler as Bible Expositor see the relevant portion of From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 7

In the next segment I will paraphrastically review these quotes and glean their actual, un-Christian, meaning—which should be obvious enough to require not elucidation.

The bottom line of all such quotes as those that I provided in the previous segment is that it must be ascertained, defined, what Adolf Hitler meant when he employed theological terminology and why he employed it. The answers are clearly that he defined the terms as that which would support him in his drive towards the purity and grandeur of Germany and Aryan/Germans—I have provided much evidence of this in the various essays found here.

Who was the “Almighty Creator” to whom Adolf Hitler accorded his conduct? The power which granted him the good fortune of being permitted to live at a time when Germany and Aryan/Germans would be purified of the Jewish corruption of their nation and blood? It is this god, the eternal judge, to whom Hitler sang, Deutschland Über Alles—Germany Above All—this was his sincere conviction. In Christian theology the heavenly “songs” consist of, for example:

Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory (Isaiah 6:3).

Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come…You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being (Revelation 4:8, 11).

Yet, according to Hitler “songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens” such as Deutschland Über Alles.

Again, we see that this “Creator” assigned a mission that Hitler must fulfill and this was to ensure the necessary security for the existence and increase of the Aryan/German race and people; the maintenance of their racial stock unmixed and the freedom and independence of Germany—again and again and again; his concern, motivation and goal was nation and race. This was his worldview and or “theology.”

It is only in the pure Aryan/Germans that the “images of God” is discernable and so impurity of their blood, lacking to ensure “their racial stock unmixed,” is tantamount to profaning this “Almighty.” This is why miscegenation (interracial mixing) lower the “superior race” and it is this which Hitler sees as “a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator” and this was “a sin this act will be avenged.” This was not a sin against the God of the Bible but against the god of evolution (the evolution to which Hitler adhered; see Hitler’s and Nazism’s Darwinism and Use, Abuse and Misuse of Darwin).

In Adolf Hitler’s view “paradise” is a pure Germany and his concept of original sin, the “expulsion from paradise,” is laying hands on, corrupting, “the highest image of the Lord” which is pure Aryan/German blood, this was “sacrilege.” While this sin is apparently unpardonable, as those already containing impure/mixed blood cannot purify it, redemption will come about by remaking the Reich. This purified Reich will “bow down before a higher god” whose theology consists of considering it “positively a sin against all reason” and “criminal lunacy” to have the “born half-ape” in high positions such as being a lawyer while “members of the highest culture-race must remain in entirely unworthy positions” as it is the Aryan/Germans who are the “most gifted beings.”

Indeed, it was this “Almighty Creator” who created perfectly pure Aryan/Germans and the “original sin” is “racial poisoning.” Note that Adolf Hitler, the supposedly Roman Catholic Christian, is lamenting voluntary celibacy as “obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church.”
Since the quote whence this came also states, “…the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created…” on the website NoBeliefs.com (a website saturated with expressions of that which they believe) Jim Walker posted an article entitled “Hitlers religious beliefs and fanaticism (Selected quotes from Mein Kampf)” and quite predicatively selects only those quotes which are self-servingly convenient for expressions of anti-Christian prejudice. To this quote he comments “‘Beings such as He Himself created,’ shows that Hitler believed in creationism” and later writes, “Here again Hitler shows his belief in a creationist model of humans origin.” Of course, it is left assumed to “creationism” is “creationism” is “creationism.” Yet, we have seen just what Hitler meant by “creation” and it should be further noted that were Jim Walker to not so narrowly select quotes he could have noted that Hitler wrote:

The idea of struggle is as old as life itself, for life is only preserved because other living things perish through struggle. In this struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while the less able, the weak, lose. Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle.[1]

Also,

Thus there results the subjection of a number of people under the will, often of only a few persons, a subjection based simply upon the right of the stronger, a right which, as we see in Nature, can be regarded as the sole conceivable right, because it is founded on reason.[2]

These are not “creationist” concepts but Darwinian evolutionary concepts; for more see Atheist and Darwinist Communists and Hitler’s and Nazism’s Darwinism and Use, Abuse and Misuse of Darwin

Yet, the beliefs of NoBeliefs.com and the beliefs of Jim Walker do not end here as he also notes Adolf Hitler’s reference to the “image of God” and comments, “See Genesis 1:27 for man created in Gods image.” But why see Genesis when Hitler meant nothing to the likes of the Genesis reference which states that God created both male and female in His image? As we have seen, in Hitlerian terms the “image of God” is only visible in pure Aryan/Germans.

NoBeliefs.com / Jim Walker also believe that Hitler’s following statement “…refutes the common impression that Hitler admired ancient Nordic customs”:

The characteristic thing about these people is that they rave about old Germanic heroism, about dim prehistory, stone axes, spear and shield, but in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined. For the same people who brandish scholarly imitations of old German tin swords, and wear a dressed bearskin with bulls horns over their heads, preach for the present nothing but struggle with spiritual weapons, and run away as fast as they can from every Communist blackjack.
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Yet, Hitler is not saying a single word about “Nordic customs”/“old Germanic heroism” in and of themselves but was condemning those who “rave about” them but “in reality are the greatest cowards that can be imagined.” Because while they imitate these they do not actually fight but leave it up to a “struggle with spiritual weapons.”
Such is the lack of discernment of those who seek to condemn Christianity by appealing to Adolf Hitler while merely succeeding in discrediting themselves.

Lastly, note that regardless of denomination, Adolf Hitler preached “the sacred duty” to urging people to “actually fulfill Gods will”—which is when we see that for Hitler the “Church” was a tool to be remolded with a theology to be reinterpreted towards his own ends. As we have seen; he does not want to see “Gods word be desecrated” so as to destroy “His work” as by doing so they are “declaring war on the Lords creation, the divine will” which is the restoration of the purity of Aryan/Germans über alles and Deutschland über Alles.

It is readily discernable that within these quotes and the vast corpus of Adolf Hitler’s deeds, writing and speeches (and Nazism’s in general) there is not a shred of true, traditional, original, Biblical, clear and basic Christian theology. What we see is that any theological references are redefined as that which supports the German nation and the Aryan/German people and has an endgame the purity of both.

While many people seem to have merely conducted a keyword search for “God and Hitler”; the context of his words, the redefinition of theological terms and the evidence of his actions demonstrate that whatever Hitler meant by such references they were most certainly not reference to Biblical Christianity or the Bible itself.

[1] Joachim C. Fest, The Face Of The Third Reich (1963), p. 27 citing “Speech at Kulmbach on 5th February 1928, quoted by Alan Bullock in Hitler. A Study in Tyranny”
[2] See Chapter VII – “Means Used by the Nazi Conspirators in Gaining Control of the German State” (© 1996-2007 The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. The Lillian Goldman Law Library in Memory of Sol Goldman)

We will conclude by considering various other statements by Adolf Hitler about Christianity; having previously affirmed that Hitler was an anti-Christian as was Nazism in general.

13th January, 1923:

The internal expurgation of the Jewish spirit is not possible in any platonic way. For the Jewish spirit as the product of the Jewish person. Unless we expel the Jewish people. Unless we expel the Jewish people soon, they will have judaized our people within a very short time.
—Eberhard Jäckel, Hitler’s Weltanschauung: A Blueprint for Power [Hitler’s Worldview], p. 52; from a speech at Nuremberg

11th-12th July, 1941:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together….The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianitys illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.

21st July, 1941:

If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Jewish family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition. If one little Jewish boy survives without any Jewish education, with no synagogue and no Hebrew school, it [Judaism] is in his soul. Even if there had never been a synagogue or a Jewish school or an Old Testament, the Jewish spirit would still exist and exert its influence. It has been there from the beginning and there is no Jew, not a single one, who does not personify it.
—quoted in Robert Wistrich, Hitlers Apocalypse: The Jews and the Nazi Legacy, p. 122; from a conversation with Croatian Foreign Minister General Kvaternik

10th October, 1941:

By means of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed. The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.

14th October, 1941:

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death...When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity...Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity....And thats why someday its structure will collapse....the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little...Christianity the liar...Well see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.

19th October, 1941:

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity….
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.

21st October, 1941:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didnt the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, its in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.

25th October, 1941:

Im sure that Nero didnt set fire to Rome. It was the Christian-Bolsheviks who did that, just as the Commune set fire to Paris in 1871 and the Communists set fire to the Reichstag in 1932.

13th December, 1941:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery....
When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Lets be the only people who are immunised against the disease….
I dont interfere in matters of belief. Therefore I cant allow churchmen to interfere with temporal affairs. The organised lie must be smashed. The State must remain the absolute master….
I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mahomet, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding-bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature.
But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A negro with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.

14th December, 1941:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I dont believe the things possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity—the Christianity of the catacombs—is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics.

9th April, 1942:

There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.

26th February, 1942:

As soon as the idea was introduced that all men were equal before God, that world was bound to collapse.

27th February, 1942:

Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldnt, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance. Man must be put in a position to develop freely the talents that God has given him.

27th Jan 1942:

It was Christianity that brought about the fall of Rome – not the Germans or the Huns…..
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity...My regret will have been that I couldnt...behold….
I shall never believe that what is founded on lies can endure forever. I believe in truth. Im sure that, in the long run, truth must be victorious. Its probable that, as regards religion, we are about to enter an era of tolerance. Everybody will be allowed to seek his own salvation in the way that suits him best. The ancient world knew this climate of tolerance. Nobody took to proselytizing.

4th April, 1942:

The fact that the Japanese have retained their political philosophy, which is one of the essential reasons for their success, is due to their having been saved in time from the views of Christianity. Just as in Islam, there is no terrorism in the Japanese State religion, but, on the contrary, a promise of happiness. This terrorism in religion is, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalized and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds.

5th June, 1942:

It is deplorable that the Bible should have been translated into German, and that the whole of the German Folk should have thus become exposed to the whole of this Jewish mumbo jumbo…
As a sane German, one is flabbergasted to think that German human beings could have let themselves be brought to such a pass by Jewish filth and priestly twaddle, that they were little different from the howling dervish of the Turks and the negroes, at whom we laugh so scornfully. It angers one to think that, while in other parts of the globe religious teaching like that of Confucius, Buddha and Mohammed offers an undeniably broad basis for the religious-minded, Germans should have been duped by a theological exposition devoid of all honest depth.

4th July, 1942:

The American statesmen, by subjecting the Church to the same regulations governing all other associations and institutions, have limited its field of activity to reasonable proportions; and, as the State does not contribute from State Funds one single cent to the church, the whole clergy cringes and sings hymns in praise of Government. This is not to be wondered at!
The parson, like everyone else, has got to live; what he makes out of the public offertory doesnt amount to much, and so he is more or less dependent on State charity. As he has no legal claim whatever on the State, he therefore takes very good care that his demeanour is always pleasing in the eyes of the State and therefore deserving of the crumbs it cares to toss to him….
The development of relations between State and Church affords a very instructive example of how the carelessness of a single statesman can have after-effects which last for centuries. When Charlemagne was kneeling at prayer in St. Peters, Rome, at Christmas in the year 8oo, the Pope, giving him no time to work out the possible effects of so symbolic an action, suddenly bent down and presto! popped a golden crown on his head! By permitting it, the Emperor delivered himself and his successors into the hands of a power which subjected the German Government and the German people to five hundred years of martyrdom.

28th August 1942:

Here is a lesson we would do well to learn: if we do not complete the conquest of the East utterly and irrevocably, each successive generation will have a war on its hand, to a greater or lesser degree. Even stupid races can accomplish something, given good leadership. Genghiz Khan’s genius for organisation was something quite unique.
Only in the Roman Empire and in Spain under Arab domination has culture been a potent factor. Under the latter, the standard of civilisation achieved was wholly admirable; to Spain flocked the greatest scientists, thinkers, astronomers and mathematicians of the world, and side by side there flourished a spirit of sweet human tolerance and a sense of the purest chivalry. Then with the advent of Christianity, came the barbarians.
The chivalry of the Castilians had been inherited by the Arabs. Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers – already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews – so gutless a thing was Christianity! – then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.

The above quotes, with the two noted exception, are from Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944 (Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. 1953), published in Britain as Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944 (Oxford University Press) as are the following although I could not pin point the dates they were stated:

Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and its the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back 15 centuries….

The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches. And thats why theyre heading for ruin - for science is bound to win…..

The earth continues to go round, whether it’s the man who kills the tiger or the tiger who eats the man. The stronger asserts his will, it’s the law of nature. The world doesn’t change; its laws are eternal.

The following quotes are from Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Speaks:

The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between us, between Germans and Jews. All else is facade and illusion. Behind England stands Israel, and behind France, and behind the United States. Even when we have driven the Jew out of Germany, he remains our world enemy….

They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians. We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us. We shall rejuvenate the world. This world is near its end….

Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortification of a false vision called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and independence which only a very few can bear….

The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a Jewish invention, it is a blemish like circumcision….

Do you now appreciate the depth of our National Socialist Movement? Can there be anything greater and more all comprehending? Those who see in National Socialism nothing more than a political movement know scarcely anything of it. It is more even than religion; it is the will to create mankind anew….

Here is one more to complete Adolf Hitler’s anti-Christian rant:

You see, its been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didnt we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?
—quoted in Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pg. 115

As I demonstrated in the parsed essay Bart Ehrman’s Millions and Millions of Variants there are more variants in Brat Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus than there are words in that book. Moreover, considering that he harps on alleged contradictions in the Bible it is fascinating to note that Ehrman is a walking contradiction himself: whether it is his faithless journey, his knowledge of criticism’s of him, his historical claims, all comes with a contradiction and or a substandard double standard.

Bart Ehrman is somewhat of a self-style modern gnostic; a possessor of rare esoteric knowledge. He holds the secret to the fact that the Bible is an unreliable man-made concoction of documents, that Christianity is a farce that just happened to win a political and theological struggle to survive as the fittest theo-meme and that he is uniquely knowledgeable and capable of revealing this truth to the youth and the world at large.
Then again, he actually claims that there is a pastoral conspiracy to keep this knowledge hidden from the general populous as he claims:

pastors who go to mainline denominational seminaries…learn in their Bible classes. But when they start working in the church, its as if they forget it all, or they decide not to tell their parishioners about it.1

In fact, his book Jesus, Interrupted is gnostically and conspiratorially subtitled, Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Dont Know About Them) and Misquoting Jesus is subtitled, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

In this parsed essay we will be considering various claims made by Bart Ehrman as well as further considering the Erhmanian mythos but first I thought to provide a just in case and very succinctly survey some of the background information:

There are circa 5,745 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament which range from whole to fragmentary.
There are what are known as families of manuscripts which represent manuscripts found or copied in different cities.
If we merely had various manuscripts with various variants and they differed to the point that we could not group them, the problem of variants would be deleterious and not, as it is, beneficial. But beneficial how?

The erroneous and ahistorical view:

The correct and historical view:

Let us imagine that one family of manuscripts totals 1,000 copies. Let us further imagine that each of these manuscripts misspells “corpuscle” as “corpseuscle.” This one misspelled would be counted as 1,000 variants as this one single misspelled word occurs in 1,000 copies. Now, how could we ever know what “corpseuscle” was supposed to mean? Was it something to do with “corpuscles” or something to do with “corpses”?
Firstly, we would discern the meaning from the context. Secondly, we see the advantage of having families in that while this 1,000 member family reads “corpseuscle” the other families, let us imagine that they total 4,745 manuscripts agree that the reading is “corpuscle.”
It is in conducting such corroborations that we are able to iron out variants. In fact, that errors were copied time and time again within the families is evidence of the care with which they were copied. Yes, an error was made somewhere along the way but the evidence is that they were being copied reliably, meaning as is. Thus, when errors, accretions or otherwise purposeful corruptions were inserted into the text, we can find them out and keep getting ever closer to the original.

Furthermore, consider that in addition to the Greek manuscripts, there are some 8,000-10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and circa 8,000 Ethiopic, Slavic, Armenian manuscripts. For a total of circa 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament which is the most well documented ancient writing and far more reliable than any ancient work of fiction or history, certainly more reliable than any ancient work which is used in attempts to discredit it.
When corroboration is considered we conclude that the New Testament can be accurately reconstructed to what in 1980 AD Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix quantified as “A form that is 99.5% pure”2 and which has been subsequently updated to 99.8%.

Now, let us further imagine the following: let us gather all 24,000 manuscripts and destroy them. Moreover, why not also go ahead and destroy all Bibles, all internet/computer files containing the Bible, etc. Now, let us survey the writings of the early church fathers and glean from those writings their quotations from the New Testament. We find that solely quoting from the early church fathers we are able to reconstruct the entire New Testament with the exception of a mere eleven verses (which, of course, do not affect any major doctrine).

In a previous essay on Bart Ehrman I demonstrated that there are two tales of how Bart Ehrman came to abandon Christianity and embrace agnosticism.
One is the tale of the heroic skeptic who was a Christian but later, based solely on unbiased scholarship spiked with personal academic integrity, followed the evidence where it lead and was forced by the weight of the evidence to conclude that the Bible and Christianity were fallacious.
The other tale is the true story which is that Ehrman concocted his own personal theology which is so orthodox and authoritative that it cannot be toppled by logic or theologic and whereby, peppered by personal subjective experiences, he made an emotionally based choice to reject the Bible and its God.

The first version, the scholar’s version, is succinctly stated as follows:

I was a born-again Christian in high school and I went off to a fundamentalist Bible college…I went to Princeton Theological Seminary…started finding what my professors had said, that there were discrepancies in the Bible, contradictions…my view of scripture started changing drastically…historical information affected me personally and affected my faith journey.3

Ehrman clarifies:

if your faith is rooted in a belief in the Bible, in a literal understanding of the Bible, and that gets taken away from you, then what do you have left? You either have to change the way you believe or you have to give up your belief.

What happened in my case is I actually didnt give up my belief because of any of this…what led me to leave the faith, [was] not my change in my views of the Bible.4

the problems of the Bible are not what led me to leave the faith.5

So what did cause it? It was a mixture of personal experiences such as when a Christian youth leader visited his father as he was dying of cancer in a hospital,

The youth leader used a bottle of hotel shampoo to “anoint” his father, and tried to persuade his father to confess specific sins, Ehrman says. Ehrman says he was angry at the minister for acting “self-righteous” and “hypocritical.”6

While we must be empathetic to the fact of this very emotionally charged situation it is also important to ascertain what Bart Ehrman was rejecting and or rebelling against. For example, James 5:14 states that if someone is sick the elders should pray for them and anoint them with “oil” (elaion in the Greek) and not with shampoo.
Also, considering texts such as 1st John 1:9 stated that “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” I am not certain whence came the anger.
Moreover, it is a non sequitur to conclude that the minister was “acting ‘self-righteous’ and ‘hypocritical’” as persuading the confession of sins in no way implies that the person doing the persuading considers themselves somehow morally or spiritually superior—although, perhaps “specific sins” is supposed to point towards something specific which we simply cannot discern from this succinct explanation.

Now, let us come to the root of the matter which is that Bart Ehrman became such as fundamentalist theologian that he could let nothing topple his particular self-authored dogma. I am not referring to him becoming a Christian “fundie” but that he invented a theology about what God would, should, could, and would not, should not, and could not do and would let no other logic or theologic trouble his:

My understanding of the Bible changed and I became a kind of mainstream, mainline, liberal Christian who thought the Bible had discrepancies but I still believed in God and still believed Christ was the Son of God and still believed in his death for salvation and all those things.
The reason I became an agnostic is unrelated to this material…how I actually lost my faith, which was related to my problem believing that there could be a good God in control of this world given the state of things, given all the suffering and pain in the world. Thats what led me to leave the faith, not my change in my views of the Bible.7

The problem of suffering has haunted me for a very long time…Ultimately, it was the reason I lost my faith…

I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given the state of things. For many people who inhabit this planet, life is a cesspool of misery and suffering. I came to a point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge of it.8

Having dealt with the problem of evil variously (see the relevant portions here, here, here, here and here, to name a few) I wanted to focus on what I meant by Ehrman’s theology since this is something which I have noticed of atheists as well.
They concoct their very own theologies to the affect of: if God was then God would/could/should _____________ (fill in the blank); since we do not notice that _____________ (fill in the blank) occurs, then God is not. In Bart Ehrman’s case it was; if God was then God would/could/should not allow any evil—such as rejecting God and the Bible and urging others to do likewise—since we notice that evil occurs, then God is not.
Now, just to clarify; he claims to be an agnostic, stating, “Im not an atheist myself”9 partly because “I dont ‘know’ if there is a God”10 and conversely he does not know if there is not one. This means that he cannot positively affirm nor deny God’s existence and is therefore an agnostic. Lesson to be learned is that the majority of New Atheist styled atheists today are agnostics but do not know it, do not realize it, will not admit it, or what have you. This much Bart Ehrman got right (see, History of Atheism for details on this issue).

Back the Ehrmanian school of dogmatic theology: whether his problem of evil argument makes perfect sense to you or not, the bottom line fact is that it is a theological position, one that he (and others) have invented and one that they consider so authoritative that they do not allow it to be toppled by anything.

1. 1. Fiona Morgan, “Complete interview with Bart Ehrman,” Indy Week, March 25, 2009
2. 2. Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A general introduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL.: Moody Press, 1980), p. 361
3. 3. Morgan
4. 4. Ibid.
5. 5. Bart Ehrman, “Excerpt: ‘Gods Problem’,” NPR
6. 6. Blake
7. 7. Morgan
8. 8. Ehrman
9. 9. Morgan
10. 10. Ehrman

We now continue considering the legend of Bart the gnostic hero Ehrman as he attempts to discredit the Bible and Christianity.

Let us consider an example of Ehrmanian logic:
Bart Ehrman provides an example of just how difficult it is to discern the true, real and originally intended meaning of a text, if not what they text states in the first place. He makes the point that the Greek New Testament manuscripts were written in all caps, without punctuation and without any spaces between the letters (this is true only of minuscule – scriptio continua manuscripts) and offers the following example; what does this say?:

GODISNOWHERE

Does it say:

GOD IS NO WHERE

Or:

GOD IS NOW HERE

Obviously, these are two very different meanings and yet both were derived from the same sentence. It is interesting that Bart Ehrman very, very often mentions, or boasts, that many or most people have never even heard of any such information as that which he is amongst us to reveal. Well, if anyone is falling for such claims and also lacks good old fashioned common sense then sure, I could see someone being flummoxed by this. Must it really be pointed out that the context dictates what a text states and means? That the overall intention of the text is indiscernible is simply giving in and giving up the hermeneutical fight before it begins.

Let us now delve into a particular example of variants which are also said to grow from little to the insertion of entire stories and finally, forgery as Bart Ehrman, the hero of the story, is said to have proved that “At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries” 1:

these copies are all different from each other, sometimes in big ways, most of the time in little ways…

manuscripts have hundreds of thousands of differences in them. A lot of them are just misspelled words that dont matter much, if anything, but there are big differences too…

This entire story, a beautiful story that in some ways you could argue is the favorite story of people who read the Gospels, wasnt in the Gospels. Its only found in the Gospel of John, and its not found in the earliest and best manuscripts of John. So scholars for hundreds of years have known that it wasnt part of John, it was a story that was added later by scribes because its found only in our later manuscripts…

There are a few big ones. And there are lots of little ones.2

Playing Ehrman’s advocate; let us imagine that we grant that this story does not reflect an actual event engaged upon by Jesus, why is this a “big one,” what does this story reflect that is nowhere else in the New Testament? The point of the story is, at least, threefold:
1) An attempt to trap Jesus in a false dichotomy.
2) Jesus’ love and offer of forgiveness.
3) The spirit of the law overrules the letter of the law.

1) Jesus defeated falsely dichotomous logical fallacies. For example, in Luke 20:22-25 we find that Jesus is asked, “Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar or not?” If He answered “Yes” He could have been reported to the Jewish leadership as He cold be said to be siding with the Gentile oppressors. If He answered “No” He could have been reported to the Roman leadership as He cold be said to be encouraging the breaking of Roman law—and Romans cared about the Pax Romana—Roman Peace over all. Thus, Jesus did the following:

But He perceived their craftiness and said to them, “Why do you tempt Me? Show Me a coin. Whose image and inscription does it have?”
They answered and said, Caesars.
And He said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things which are Caesars, and to God the things which are Gods.”

2) There are simply too many references to list but simply considering a couple suffices:
Matthew 20:34, “Jesus had compassion on them.”
Mathew 9:36, “He was moved with compassion.”
Luke 7:13, “He had compassion on her.”
Matthew 9:2, “Your sins are forgiven you.”
Mark 2:5, “Jesus said…your sins are forgiven.”
Luke 7:47, Jesus said, “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven.”

3) Consider what happened when “Jesus went through the grain fields on the sabbath day. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the heads of grain and to eat.”

But when the Pharisees saw, they said to Him, Behold, your disciples do that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day.
But He said to them, Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him, how he entered into the house of God and ate the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are blameless? But I say to you that One greater than the temple is in this place. But if you had known what this is, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice,” you would not have condemned those who are not guilty. For the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8).

Indeed, the spirit of the law is the parchment upon which the letter of the law is written.

Thus, even if we discard this particular story we do not lose any doctrine big or small or any words or deed of Jesus whatsoever.

Now, let us consider more grandiose claims such as:

important doctrines like the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, which werent the original teachings of Christianity…

The earliest Christians appear to have thought that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. In Jewish thinking, the Messiah was not a divine figure, but was a human being chosen by God to fulfill some grand purpose on earth. But over time Christians started thinking Jesus was more than just a great human or a human chosen by God. They began to think of Jesus as the Son of God in a unique sense, so that by the time you get toward the end of the New Testament period, the end of the first century, there are people thinking of Jesus himself as in some sense God…

At least 160 years after Jesus death is the first time you have anybody talking specifically about the Trinity.3

In stating what was the “Jewish thinking” Bart Ehrman is actually offer merely one of very many option (which I will not discuss here since I have evidenced various in Jewish Messianic Concepts). While a Jewish belief that the Messiah would be God in the flesh is certainly hard, if not impossible, to come by let us not imagine that God is limited to that which Jewish theology would and would not allow Him to do.
By its own admission, by the fact that they expect a Messiah and one that would bring a new Torah, Judaism admits that it is an incomplete revelation without the Messiah. Within the New Testament it is quite evident that the apostles had to take baby steps in slowly understanding who Jesus is. As for the reference to the “Son of God” indeed, since context determines meaning it is quite right to state that Jesus was the “Son of God in a unique sense.” Jesus actually preferred to refer to Himself as the “Son of Man” which some have un-contextually taken to mean that He was emphasizing His humanity. Yet, that is not what this term, in this sense, means. In correlating the concept of the Messiah with the concept of the “Son of Man” we hearken back to Daniel who wrote,

I saw in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And dominion and glory was given Him, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations and languages, should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed (Daniel 7:13-14).

Thus, we see that the Son of Man is a divine figure whose dominion is “everlasting” which is also reminiscent of the prophecy in Micah 5:2 which affirms that the one “whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity” will be born in Bethlehem.
As for the Trinity, I wonder if he in not obfuscating between the belief in the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the one hand and when the theology began to be iron out and systematized or even when the Latin word Trinitas was introduced by Tertullian (for discerning the Trinity in the Bible see here).
A mere two examples of triadic or Trinitarian allusions:
Unfortunately the dating of the Didache is wide in range from 50-120 AD to the shorter estimate of 65-80 AD. It repeats the triune “formula” found in Matthew 28:19, “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”—the singular name and not the plural names.

Sometime between 105-115 AD, Ignatius wrote an epistle to the Magnesians in which he stated,

…Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time [Ch. VI]….the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit…to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit [Ch. XIII]…

Furthermore,

Ehrman says that no one accepts everything in the Bible. Everyone picks and chooses. He cites some New Testaments references to the role of women in church as an example.
In the first book of Corinthians, Ehrman says, the Apostle Paul insists that women should remain silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:35-36).
In the 16th chapter of the book of Romans, Pauls attitude is that women could and should be church leaders -- and he cites women who were serving as deacons and apostles in the early church, Ehrman says.4

If everyone picks and chooses this would include Ehrman himself, right?
As for women remaining silent in church, I have exposited that text and concluded that it is a convenient misinterpretation (find the exposition http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/positive-atheism-cliff-walker-we... ">here).
I am not certain how “I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you receive her in the Lord, as becomes saints, and that you may assist her in whatever business she has need of you. For she has been a helper of many, and of myself also” amounts to “women could and should be church leaders” or what “leaders” means but indeed, women in the Old and New Testament are judges, own businesses, own land, are prophetesses, deacons, teachers, etc. (see here for details).

1. 1. John Blake, “Former fundamentalist debunks Bible,” CNN, May 15, 2009
2. 2. Fiona Morgan, “Complete interview with Bart Ehrman,” Indy Week, March 25, 2009
3. 3. Morgan
4. 4. Blake

We now continue considering the legend of Bart the gnostic hero Ehrman as he attempts to discredit the Bible and Christianity.

Let us consider the physical resurrection:

Ehrman says he doesnt think the resurrection took place. Theres no proof Jesus physically rose from the dead, and the resurrection stories contradict one another, he says. He says he doesnt believe the followers of Jesus saw their master bodily rise from the dead, but something else.
“My best guess is that what happened is what commonly happens today when someone has a loved one die -- they sometimes think they see them in a vision,” Ehrman says. “I think some of the disciples had visions.”1

This is fascinating as we get a window into Bart Ehrman’s conflicted mind. How so?
Well, he 1) denies that the resurrection occurred because 2) there is no proof 3) Jesus’ followers did not see His body rise from the dead and 4) the resurrection stories contradict one another therefore, 5) something else took place.

But why the affirmation of the “something else” such as his evidence-free assertion that they had visions? After all, Ehrman supposedly proved that “At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries”2 and all of them are concocted tall tales which are unreliable. Why does he still feel the need to explain the resurrection? Because he somehow knows that he cannot deny it and simply must do something about it. Why not simply state that there is no evidence, there are contradictions, the New Testament is a late dated error filled concoction and the resurrection is a quaint story like them all?

Moreover, for Bart Ehrman the issue of the resurrection is not only about no evidence, no witnesses, contradictions and visions but even if it did take place it would be un-provable:

The debate [with Mike Licona] topic is, “Can historians prove that Jesus was raised from the dead?” and hes going to be arguing yes and Im going to be arguing no. Im not going to be arguing that Jesus was not raised from the dead; what Im going to be arguing is that even if he was raised from the dead, historians cant prove it, because of the nature of historical evidence, you cant prove something like a miracle. You can believe it, but you cant prove it.

Just as with science or any other field or method of research and study: history has its limitations. He might as well argue, as he does, that history never proves anything at all. In fact, let us grant that: Bart Ehrman claims that “In my class, I dont simply tell them my opinions”3—fine, what is be telling his students? He is presented unbiased conclusions from his historical research. He is merely presenting the historical data which proves that, for example, “At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries,” the resurrection did not happen, the New Testament books are late dated, the Trinity is not original to the original Christians, etc.

This is precisely what Dan Brown argued in stating, “How historically accurate is history itself?”4 While there is some legitimacy to this statement it is also a tool by which to deny any possibility of objectivism while likewise allowing one to deal creatively with historical facts. Let us not make the claim of pure subjectivism in history a self-fulfilling prophecy by dealing loosely with the facts—on purpose. If history is not historically accurate, how can Brown claim to base his novel of historical fact? He introduces his fictional novel The Da Vinci Code by stating, “FACT” and then goes on to claim that Jesus was married, etc.

How could history accurately prove the points that Ehrman and Brown want to make but it cannot accurately prove that which those with whom they disagree appeal to in order to debunk their claims? This is a substandard double standard.

Bart Ehrman surely knows that, for example, the affirmation of Jesus resurrection found in 1st Corinthians 15 is dated to five or so years after the resurrection as Paul affirms, in the technical language of “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received” that “Christ died for our sins” then “He was buried” that is, He, Jesus, died and His corpse, His physical body, was buried “and that He rose again” that is, He, Jesus, His corpse, his physical body, rose from the place in which it was buried. Thereafter, He, Jesus, was physically “seen by Cephas, then by the Twelve….Afterward He was seen by over five hundred brothers at once, of whom the greater part remain until this present day, but also some fell asleep” this means, some were still alive; go and ask them, “Afterward He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. And last of all He was seen by me also.” As for the pains to which Jesus went to prove to them that He was physically present, see my essay here.

But why, when as opposed to the Ehrmanian mythos, such information has been in print for a very long time has Ehrman become enriched, a celebrity and the go-to-guy for anti-Christian publications and documentaries?

Misquoting Jesus for some reason really sort of caught peoples attention in a way the other books didnt, I think in part because its less academic than the other books…

I think people latched on to that because it made it more down to earth and they could see the significance of it better instead of just talking about it as a kind of academic exercise. Thats what Ive continued doing… it affected my personal faith.5

When asked, “Do you think the success of your books is part of a trend of fact-based intellectually inquiry thats being popularized?” he made reference to the popularity of anti-Christian intolerance (some which is very much deserved indeed):

there does seem to be an aspect of the culture war thats going on right now where the religious right that has sort of controlled religion for a long time in this country, you do seem to have a backlash against it.
On the far left of that are the new atheists, people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, who are really embracing atheism and are attacking religion.6

Ad to this the contemporaneous publishing by other anti-Christian media darlings such as Elaine Pagels with her “The Gnostic Gospels” and 7 These old conspiracy theories that Christians debunked long ago and many times since are being repackaged for an antagonistic, not very well informed, short attention spanned, pop-culture. Note that indeed, Ehrman recognizes that he succeeds by playing upon the heartstrings of his readers and not upon their scholastic minds.
In fact, it is widely recognized that the academic/scholarly critiques of Bart Ehrman’s academic/scholarly books were ignored and he merely repackaged those works, peppered them with emotionally charged anecdotes and regurgitated them directly into the eager mouth of youthful pop-culture as he rode upon the tsunami wave of anti-Christian belligerence. Indeed, Misquoting Jesus is “less academic” enough to obfuscate the facts and present readymade, scare-quote based, talking points.

1. 1. John Blake, “Former fundamentalist debunks Bible,” CNN, May 15, 2009
2. 2. Ibid.
3. 3. Fiona Morgan, “Complete interview with Bart Ehrman,” Indy Week, March 25, 2009
4. 4. Dan Brown quoted in Father Jonathan Morris for FOX Fan Central, Dan Brown Responds – ‘The Da Vinci Code’ — Part II
5. 5. Morgan
6. 6. Ibid.
7. 7. John Blake, “Former fundamentalist debunks Bible,” CNN, May 15, 2009

We now conclude considering the legend of Bart the gnostic hero Ehrman as he attempts to discredit the Bible and Christianity.

Now, what about the academic/scholarly critiques of Bart Ehrman’s academic/scholarly books? Well, being a man of contradictions, one thing is for certain; he either ignored them or considered them:

There were actually three books written against Misquoting Jesus. That was one of them. And there are a lot of Web sites and blogs and things that attack me. The way I deal with that is by not reading them. [Laughs.]…

I dont feel a need to respond to my critics or anything like that…

in Jesus, Interrupted, I do talk a little bit about the response to Misquoting Jesus…

I point out in this chapter [How We Got the Bible] is that nobody has disagreed with any of these eight or nine major theses, because theyre true. I think people have objected to the tone of the book maybe, or they dont like the fact that I talk about how I changed my view of the Bible because of these differences in the manuscripts, but nobody disagrees with any of the scholarship in the book. I think thats significant…

I answer just about every e-mail except for e-mails that are antagonistic…1

Thus; yes, no, maybe so. He does not bother reading criticisms and does not respond to them except when he reads them and responds to them—sort of, since he has not corrected his demonstrable errors.

It seems that overall no, he does not take criticism into consideration if he thinks that people are only expressing opinions about his tone and if he really thinks that “nobody disagrees with any of the scholarship in the book” against whom has he been debating? I would strain my cognitive functions and conclude that it is against people who disagree with his scholarship. I have yet to hear any of his debate opponents premise their case on his tone.

I wish to take an apologetics aside and focus momentarily upon this related statement:

I get a lot of e-mails from people who agree with me, with what I say about the New Testament, but if I would just join their religion I wouldnt have these problems. Those people tend to be either Muslim or Mormon. [Laughs.] A couple days ago I got something from somebody who was Bahai who thought I should join the Bahai faith…I think its a free world. Theyre welcome to convert me. Im welcome to convert them.2

This is fascinating because:
1) It is reported that Muslim have done a good job of transmitting the contents of the Quran. Yet, the reason that there are no original manuscripts (autographa) of the Quran is not that they were lost to the ravages of time but that they were lost to the purposeful fires of Caliph Uthman.
Variants became such as concern that Uthman had all manuscripts collected, he concocted an authorized version and destroyed the various variant manuscripts (find information on the issue of how the Quran came to be in the first place and more at this link).

2) Mormonism’s eighth Article of Faith states, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” The question is: how do they know when it is translated correctly? It is not due to a consideration of the original languages, a comparison of the translations and a retranslation by Mormons to a correct version?
The answer is all too simple: when they can use it to affirm Mormon doctrines, it is declared translated correctly but when they cannot, or when it contradicts them, it is not. This is not about translation but about utilitarianism.
Consider, for example, that the Bible and for that matter the Book of Mormon are monotheistic and let us ask: why are Mormons henotheistic? Because their “prophets” have told them that there are very many gods and so the Bible and Book of Mormon are discarded at this point (find information on Mormonism at this link).

3) In this regard, the Bahai Faith is very much like Mormonism as, on the surface, they affirm that the Bible is divinely inspired but they discard it, via claiming symbolism, etc., whenever it conflicts with Bahai doctrine. For example, they flatly reject the doctrine of physical resurrection; an absolutely essential Christian doctrine (find information on the Bahai Faith at this link).

Thus, we continue to find that Bart Ehrman, the man, the myth, the legend, the emotive, makes impressive claims but with a little consideration they are exposed for what they are: excuses for rejecting God.

1. 1. Fiona Morgan, “Complete interview with Bart Ehrman,” Indy Week, March 25, 2009
2. 2. Ibid.

I must admit to being stunned by the power of Adolf Hitler who even today from beyond the grave, as it where, holds sway over so very many people.
Let us consider whether Adolf Hitler was, as some claim, a Christian.

We will be considering a page from evilbible.com. As a reminder; keep in mind that evilbible.com has been discredited on various levels and for various reasons (which I evidence here and will continue to do so below).
Also, keep in mind that as with absolutely every condemnation of the Bible, its God, Jesus and Christianity found within evilbible.com we must note that the condemnations go unsubstantiated since they are premised upon an particular atheistic worldview whereby condemnation of anything at all amounts to mere assertions based on emotive and impotent arguments from outrage. Moreover, as has been evidenced ubiquitously, evilbible.com also thrives on arguments from manipulation and rely on partial, self-serving, information.

You may be aware that evilbible.com has posted certain pages from a certain Charlotte who wrote a series entitled, “The Church of Theists Suck [sic].” These were previously posted on a website that was entitled “Theists Suck.” That website is now dead and gone with portions of it living on at evilbible.com. Charlotte wrote that she is an “ATHEIST WOMAN,” and is clearly both very angry and very lacking in knowledge of even the most basic biblical concepts, contexts and contents. Below we will find that she is equally lacking in logic and knowledge of history.

Be aware that I did write an email to evilbible.com’s administrator. I mentioned that the page contained an erroneous point based on an uncontextual quotation from Hitler and that I would be glad to elucidate the matter.
I reckoned; begin small and take baby steps towards elucidating what a concoction of ahistorical, illogical and manipulative article it is but alas; I received no response.

This time we will consider an essay written by Charlotte entitled, “Hitler Was a Christian - The Holocaust was caused by Christian fundamentalism” (I wonder if she ever got around to writing one entitled, “Communists Were Atheists - The Communist Atrocities were caused by Atheistic fundamentalism”?). She introduces the essay as follows:

History is currently being distorted by the millions of Christians who lie to have us believe that the Holocaust was not a Christian deed. Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today’s Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian in order to place his misdeeds on those with out [sic] Jesus. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. Those who would make Hitler an atheist should turn their eyes to history books before they address their pews and chat rooms.

Considering that Christianity has thus far been incapable of producing an unbiased, educated follower which speaks the truth, (I haven’t encountered any), I have been forced to dispel the myth by writing this essay. It is not until I bring up his speeches, my personal info on the Nazi regime and their tactics that a Christian will begin to question what their clergy told them. (I am the offspring of a German soldier. My Opa served under Hitler in WW2 and my father was raised during the time of the Nazi regime. This is important information to take into consideration for I am privy to some info that most Americans do not know. It is common for American media and education institutions to lie to their citizens concerning Nazi Germany.) So, in presenting this information I must break it into four parts:
1) Facts about Hitler and his involvement with the Church.
2) How the Church was the catalyst for anti- Semitism.
3) Facts concerning how the Nazi regime drilled these beliefs into Germanic society.
4) Quotes Hitler made which prove he had a disdain for atheism/occultism, upheld his Christian faith, and hated Jews due to his Christianity.

Sadly, she could not contain herself and demonstrates a very, very odd and clearly fallacious point of view, “Christianity has thus far been incapable of producing an unbiased, educated follower which speaks the truth,” you may have thought that even one single such Christian in the past two millennia would have been produced but alas—then again this is premised upon the fact that she has not personally encountered any.

This may be indicative of what happens when we engage in well-within-the-box-group-think and never get out into the real world and interact with people with whom we disagree. Thus, her conclusion is that all Christians are biased—this is a biased statement and who is not biased?—all Christians are uneducated—this statement is uneducated and she does not define education—no Christians speak the truth—this is clearly false and she does not define “truth”: and this applies to every Christian who has ever lived in the past two millennia.

Christians are biased, uneducated and do not speak the truth thus, Christians distort history, lie, and commit subterfuge and concealment via camouflage. This just goes to show the mindset which we are up against in dealing with the author of “The Church of Theists Suck [sic].” But so as to not even border on the ad hominem let us consider the substance and details of her actual arguments.

I will begin dissecting her argument by agreeing on one point which is that: my research has not convinced me that Adolf Hitler was an “atheist” (research that I posted as From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 13 of 13). However, our agreement ends here since I am prepared to argue, and have argued, that Hitler was “a pagan cult worshipper” and “a false Christian.”

Her next point is to present an argument from authority: she is the offspring of a German soldier who was himself raised during the time of the Nazi regime (note that whether her Opa was a “Christian” remains unstated or even if he was a Nazi—keep in mind that German soldier raised during the time of the Nazi regime does not amount to Nazi). Thus, she possessed more and different knowledge than “most Americans” and the “American media” and also American “education institutions” because these “lie to their citizens concerning Nazi Germany.”

Well, I am the offspring of Jews who were murdered by Nazis yet, my research has been based upon information gleaned from wherever I could find it and via considering various sides of the issue. As for Charlotte, we shall have to see what comes from her gnosis.

I thought to provide resources at this time since, in reality, all that which follows could be responded to by appealing to that which I have already written. Yet, evilbile.com’s and Charlotte’s claims are important enough to consider in a point-by-point manner; see From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist

Evilbible.com and Charlotte conclude this section thusly:

“Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf

Charlotte’s interpretation,

Here Hitler is admitting that his war against the Jews were so successful because of his strong Christian Spirituality.

Note that Hitler refers to “spiritual conviction” and “spiritual base” but it is Charlotte who decides that this means “Christian Spirituality”; actually, “strong” Christian Spirituality.

In the chapter which Charlotte quoted (Volume One - A Reckoning - Chapter V: The World War) Hitler does not define what he means by “spirituality” and or to which “spirituality” he is referring. I would imagine that 1) it did not matter since the point it to juxtapose one, any, “spirituality” against another and 2) we know what this “spirituality” was by the greater context of Nazi history which would define it as a Christian facade which encased an anti-Christian purpose along with Aryan mythology, Norse mythology, the occult in general, Hinduism and Buddhism (see From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 8 of 13 for evidence of this fact). This may be the generic “spiritual nature of the people” to which Hitler had earlier referred.

Let us consider the context of the quote:

One question came to the fore, however: can spiritual ideas be exterminated by the sword? Can philosophies be combated by the use of brute force?...Conceptions and ideas, as well as movements with a definite spiritual foundation…only be broken with technical instruments of power if these physical weapons are at the same time the support of a new kindling thought, idea, or philosophy.

The application of force alone, without the impetus of a basic spiritual idea as a starting point, can never lead to the destruction of an idea and its dissemination, except in the form of a complete extermination of even the very last exponent of the idea and the destruction of the last tradition…

every persecution which occurs without a spiritual basis seems morally unjustified and whips up precisely the more valuable parts of a people in protest, which results in an adoption of the spiritual content of the unjustly persecuted movement…the complete annihilation of the new doctrine can be carried out only through a process of extermination so great and constantly increasing that in the end all the truly valuable blood is drawn out of the people or state in question…

nearly all attempts to exterminate a doctrine and its organizational expression, by force without spiritual foundation, are doomed to failure…as soon as force wavers and alternates with forbearance, not only will the doctrine to be repressed recover again and again, but it will also be in a position to draw new benefit from every persecution, since, after such a wave of pressure has ebbed away, indignation over the suffering induced leads new supporters to the old doctrine, while the old ones will cling to it with greater defiance and deeper hatred than before, and even schismatic heretics, once the danger has subsided, will attempt to return to their old viewpoint.
Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain…

The fight against a spiritual power with methods of violence remains defensive, however, until the sword becomes the support, the herald and disseminator, of a new spiritual doctrine…

Any attempt to combat a philosophy with methods of violence will fail in the end, unless the fight takes the form of attack for a new spiritual attitude. Only in the struggle between two philosophies can the weapon of brutal force, persistently and ruthlessly applied lead to a decision for the side it supports. This remained the reason for the failure of the struggle against Marxism.
This was why Bismarcks Socialist legislation finally failed and had to fail, in spite of everything. Lacking was the platform of a new philosophy for whose rise the fight could have been waged. For only the proverbial wisdom of high government officials will succeed in believing that drivel about so-called state authority or law and order could form a suitable basis for the spiritual impetus of a life-and-death struggle.
Since a real spiritual basis for this struggle was lacking, Bismarck had to entrust the execution of his Socialist legislation to the judgment and desires of that institution which itself was a product of Marxist thinking. By entrusting the fate of his war on the Marxists to the well-wishing of bourgeois democracy, the Iron Chancellor set the wolf to mind the sheep.
All this was only the necessary consequence of the absence of a basic new anti-Marxist philosophy endowed with a stormy will to conquer.

Note that, overall, Hitler likens a generic “spirituality” with generic “thought, idea, or philosophy.” This is why I do not believe that he was referring to any one particular “spirituality” since this the purpose of this spirituality/thought/idea/philosophy is only to have something upon which to engage in conceptual battles for power.

The last section in evilbible.com’s ode to Charlotte consists of only one quotation and no interpretation.

Quotes from Other Nazis about Hitler and Religion:

"Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Gobbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide." (Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer page 95-96)

Since Charlotte did not elucidate we can only image what the point may have been. The point of the quotation is quite obvious and makes a point against that which evilbible.com and Charlotte sought to evidence; clearly Hitler and other Nazis remained in churches for the sake of politics, for the appearance, “he had no real attachment to it.”

Thus, what have we learned? What gnosis did Charlotte reveal? What is the point of posting this on evilbible.com?
The premise of the webpage was that Hitler was a Christian. What we learned is that he was raised somewhat “religiously” at least jumping through ritualistic hoops. Hitler’s attention turned towards war in general. Also, his motivations were national and racial.

What we really do learn a lot about is evilbible.com’s and Charlotte’s modus operandi. We encountered illogic. We were made privy to partial and self-serving quotations. We encountered an argument from authority. We uncovered unscholarly lack of historical knowledge. We found clashed between inference and implications. We exampled a basic lack of determining context (even when the very next sentence refuted the supposed point of the previous). And, perhaps most importantly: the entire page was premised upon an argument from outrage as evilbible.com and Charlotte provide no standard whatsoever whereby to condemn Christianity, the Bible, Hitler, Nazism, the Holocaust or anything at all.

What if Hitler really was a Christian? What would that mean? Firstly, his worldview, words and actions do not allow for the conclusion that he was a Christian but: let us grant this impossible conclusion. It would mean that he was a very bad example of a Christian. It would mean that his worldview, words and actions did not possess even the slightest hint of a knowledge of true traditional/biblical Christianity. It would mean that his worldview, words and actions alert us to the fact that he did not possess Christian spiritual maturity so as to act in a manner in keeping with loving one’s neighbors (a teaching, by the way, that Jesus exampled to the Jews via reference to the Samaritans who were of different nationality, “race,” and religion—see Luke 10:25-37).

But what would it say of Christianity itself if Hitler was a Christian. Here we must parse the response in order to take into account two considerations 1) What would it say of traditional/biblical Christianity? 2) What would it say of Christianity as religion, a movement, a clerical hierarchy, etc.

1) In such a case; Hitler’s actions would be compared to the statements in the New Testaments, Jesus’ actions, the actions of the actually followers of Jesus in the New Testament (the Christians, the apostles and disciples) and perhaps even the early church. If Hitler’s worldview, words and actions correspond to these then he could be said to have been a Christian, to have acted in accord of Christian doctrine and thus, Christianity could be blamed for the Holocaust.
2) In such a case; we are dealing with “Christianity” as whatever anyone wants to label as “Christianity” which is no “Christianity” at all. We are indeed, dealing with, as we have seen within this parsed essay, the façade of “Christianity” which thinly veils political ambitions, bids for clerical power, racism, the gaining of territory, etc. If the individual defined “Christianity” then “Christianity” is anything and thus nothing. And yes, defining “Christianity” or who is a “Christian” can lead to deep theological waters but the basic are just that and are not subjective.

Moishe Rosen notes,

The phrase “2,000 years of history leading up to the Holocaust” is more than a reference to past prejudice and persecution. It is an indictment against Christianity that misinterprets Christ’s message and intent. Anyone who gives credence to such an accusation bestows upon Hitler the power to change theology.[1]

Consider the words of Jesus:

You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruits, nor can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit…

Not everyone who says to Me, Lord! Lord! shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your name, and through Your name throw out demons, and through Your name do many wonderful works? And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness! (Matthew 7:16-23).

Did Hitler produce good fruit? No. Therefore we cannot know him to be a Christian.

“But, but, but Hitler said that he was a Christian and, and, and the belt buckles…”

He could claim whatever he wanted. He could have prophesied. He could have exorcized demons. He could have performed many wonderful works. He could have done it all in the very name of Jesus. Yet, this would still not mean that he was a Christian. Consider that the next time you besmirch Jesus, God, the Bible and Christianity because someone did something in the name of Jesus—from the Crusades to the bouffant haired televangelists.

Note that Jesus states that the deciding factor will be that “I never knew you!” Was Jesus not divine? Did Jesus not possess omniscience? How then does He claim to not have known them?

My friends; this is why Christians state that Christianity is not a “religion” but a “relation” a “relationship”; those doing such things were not in relationship with Jesus. He did not know them on the close and personal basis of a relationship—they never developed a relationship with Jesus but merely used Jesus.

Christianity is no mere claim, no mere proclamation, no mere “religious” ritual system, no merely self-declared profession—it is a development of a relationship with Jesus. I have found no indication that Hitler ever did any such thing.

Let us end by noting that on this view Hitler died and faced a judgment, justice was served and the evil perpetrated by him will someday be redeemed.

If I was an atheist I would not be as worried about Hitler, Nazism and the Holocaust as I would be about the fact that I cannot even condemn Hitler, Nazism and the Holocaust by appealing to anything beyond my personal preferences.

On the materialist view that the cessation of brain function ends a person’s consciousness; Hitler lived, in a manner of speaking for the sake of argument, a wonderful and enviable life. He had thousands of adoring adherents. He, for some time, enjoyed unchallengeable power. He conquered that which he coveted. And when he, when he himself, found his world crumbling around him he chose to take his own life.
Thereafter—nothing.
No judgment. No justice. No anything. Nothing but the sort of perfect peace of annihilation. His victims, their families, friends and world continue suffering and he rests.

Atheism makes evil even worse by not doing anything about it, by guaranteeing that it is unredeemable, and by making evil exist for the benefit of the evildoer who gets to enjoy their evil deeds and then gets away with it. They may end up incarcerated by the judicious systems of this world for some time but ultimately there is an absolute lack of accountability.

The fact of evil and suffering in the world is one of the very best reasons for rejecting atheism.

[1] Compiled by Eliyah Gould, Rich Robinson and Ruth Rosen, The Y’shua Challenge - Answers for Those Who Say Jews Can’t Believe in Jesus (San Francisco, CA: Purple Pomegranate Productions), p. 21, citing Moishe Rosen, “Am Yisrael Chai,” Issue, 9:4 (1993), p.2