But this is changing the subject away from what I originally said.
My response is that you are deliberately relying on a Christian apologetic work, instead of an objective historical analysis from several independent professional historical sources. This suggests you are more interested in defending German Christians from criticism, than in establishing the facts.
This is a rather odd way to say “Over 60% of the country’s pastors did not sign the League opposing the anti-Semitism”. That speaks for itself.
Again, “in some areas” speaks for itself.
A third. In other words, two thirds did not. You also posted a lot of stuff about Poland (off-topic), and a lot of stuff about what the New Testament teaches (also off-topic), so I’ll skip that.
Thank you for supporting what I already said.
It was not “some”. It was “most”. I note you haven’t actually addressed any of the sources I cited.
No I did not. I didn’t post that at all, and I didn’t make any comment on it either.
I take your original statement to be in post 3 and the title, that “mainstream Christians betrayed Christ.” Before that you just had a long YouTube video. I’m not changing the subject but I’m rather saying that before we can look at your claim we need to be sure of our numbers—at least so far as we are able to do so. I was hoping someone could offer and verify numbers instead of just saying something is a tiny minority or a large majority in any particular group. But if we can’t then we just have to work with the information we have.
I do apologize for saying you made a post that was offered by someone else. It was John Mercer who presented the image of the belt buckle. I read the post too quickly, saw your picture was in the post with a comment, and didn’t notice that John was the author of the post.
I don’t think you should complain that I looked for information from a work which was defending Christianity. We need to look at proponents from both sides of the argument in order to have a fully honest discussion. You’ve offered information from one side, so we need to see some from the other. You say, “This suggests you are more interested in defending German Christians from criticism, than in establishing the facts.” No, it establishes facts better to look at opposing views and not just to assume that one presentation is giving “all the facts.” If you assume an apologist for one view is biased, shouldn’t we assume an apologist for the opposing view is also biased? No, just because a researcher is inclined to support a certain view does not mean they are biased in presenting information. Notice also that my source offered evidence you were quick to point out supported your view.
Many holocaust researchers strongly believe they should be involved in their work in order to expose this information to make sure it never happens again. They believe it happened, that the horrible atrocities they recount occurred, and that the numbers they give are accurate. The fact that they are apologists for holocaust awareness does not lead us to question their honesty or accuracy or completeness in presenting information.
From one of my statements you responded that “this is a rather odd way to say ‘Over 60% of the country’s pastors did not sign the League opposing the anti-Semitism’. That speaks for itself.” Notice that 40% is hardly the “tiny minority” (6) you claim. And a good number of those who did not sign were not necessarily betraying their biblical standards. Recall Allen Witmer Miller’s quote (4):
“Yes, many mainstream Christians under Nazi Germany, including many high-profile denominational leaders, betrayed their Biblical scruples. And many did not, although those disagreeing and even opposing the regime had to do so very carefully and behind-the-scenes. The latter group of Christians certainly was careful about keeping a low profile under penalty of death. That doesn’t mean that they did not try to do what they could to oppose what the Nazis were doing.”
You said that you would need good evidence that many “high-profile denominational leaders did not betray their biblical scruples” (6) and yet that is what I offered in my post. I offered the names of several people, some of whom paid with their lives. I could have given more had I not been trying to keep this post as short as I could. Furthermore, Miller’s explanation does show that we should not think that just because someone is silent they are placating the Nazis. I said the same in my post. If you are going to do effective work by hiding Jews or Jehovah’s Witnesses or by sabotaging munitions factories, you can’t bring attention to yourself. And going back to the 40%, this is a large enough percentage that it seems quite inappropriate to say that this is not “many” denominational leaders.
You said, “You also posted a lot of stuff about Poland (off-topic), and a lot of stuff about what the New Testament teaches (also off-topic).”
The events in Poland and other countries I mentioned indicate how deeply anti-Christian the Nazi regime actually was and this gives us very important background information. There was no sense in which it or Hitler were “Christian.” Some of the events I mentioned like the number of people rescued in these countries also show how so many Christians did not betray their Christian principles.
The “stuff about what the New Testment teaches” is also important for understanding the claim you are making. If for the sake of the argument we were to agree that “mainstream Christians betrayed Christ” quite as completely and indefensibly as you maintain, this simply substantiates Jesus’ statement that there will always be a large number of tares among the wheat, pretend Christian among the real ones. It may even be that most professing Christians are not Christians at all.
We already had a discussion on this, and you were already addressing my actual statement on this subject, so I don’t see the need for you to change the subject now.
If you thought that, then you would have looked at the numbers. But you haven’t looked at the numbers. You are changing the subject.
You mischaracterize professional historians as having a “side”, specifically as being advocates for the opposite side to Christian apologists.
Professional historians are not apologists for an “opposing view”. They are not actively trying to incriminate Christians, they are simply investigating facts. Christian apologists on the other hand are actively trying to exculpate Christians. This is why we should be skeptical of Christian apologists and more trusting of professional historians. Only one of these is an apologetic “side”; the Christians.
I also noticed that you deliberately presented it as if it supported your view. This was a classic example of spin.
There is no such thing an “apologist for holocaust awareness”. Professional historians conduct peer reviewed research, using academically established standards of rigor, motivated by professional concerns. The same cannot be said for Christian apologists attempting to exculpate Christians from their support for the Nazis. Their treatment of the evidence is suspect because it is motivated by a desire to interpret the facts in a particular way.
You’re changing the subject. I used the phrase “tiny minority” to describe the Christadelphians and the Confession Church, who were a “tiny minority” of Christians in Germany who opposed the Nazi regime. What you cited was the percentage of pastors in Germany who signed the Pfarrernotbund (Emergency Covenant of Pastors). You represented it thus.
The Pfarrernotbund was not a simple protest of anti-Semitism. It opposed the exclusion of non-Aryans from the church, but its main purpose was to oppose the merging of the Protestant churches into the Reich Church. If you are concerned about statistical accuracy, you need to determine how many of the pastors who signed that document did so to protest anti-Semitism, as opposed to being motivated to oppose the merger into the Reich Church.
Let’s look at some numbers more closely.
There were 18,842 Protestant pastors in Germany.
In 1933, 7,036 of them signed the Pfarrernotbund. That’s only 37%.
By 1935, that number had fallen to 4,952. That’s only 26%.
So by 1935, only 26% of Germany’s Protestant pastors were still committed to the Pfarrernotbund.
Now let’s look at the Confession Church. There were 18,842 pastors in the Protestant churches in Germany, and only 3,000 of them joined the Confessing Church; only 26%. Again, that speaks for itself.
No you did not. You haven’t shown any figure which could be characterized as “many”. You’ve shown evidence for a figure of about 37% at best in 1933, which fell to 26% in 1935, as anti-Semitism was growing worse.
That’s ok, I am not saying that just because someone was silent they were placating the Nazis. But someone who was inactive was placating the Nazis. You even defended silence and non-activism in your previous post.
Firstly it wasn’t even 40%, and secondly it fell to 26% just two years later, as anti-Semitism grew worse. Thirdly, your repeated use of the word “many” is very obviously apologetic spin. These two statements both describe the statistics, but one of them is clearly biased.
Many denominational leaders signed the Pfarrernotbund.
An initial 37% of denominational leaders signed the Pfarrernotbund in 1933; by 1935 support from denominational leaders had fallen to 26%.
The first statement very obviously obscures the facts, and gives the impression that the Pfarrernotbund received significant support from denominational leaders. The second statement declares the facts dispassionately, and reveals the true state of affairs.
The subject is Christians in Germany. You don’t get to count Christians in other countries.
Jesus does not identify the tares as “pretend Christians”. This is an appeal to the No true Scotsman fallacy.
Just read “Christian Complicity?” As good as this essay is and as objective as it tries to be I think it shows how important it is to look at arguments from differing views. For example, Ericksen points out that even people like Niemoller had his dark side, having voted for Hitler in 32. Yet the Wikipedia article on Niemoller includes his statement as to why he did so. Reading Ericksen alone would leave an inaccurate final impression of this man. Here is Niemoller’s statement when asked why he once supported the Nazi party.
I find myself wondering about that too. I wonder about it as much as I regret it. Still, it is true that Hitler betrayed me. I had an audience with him, as a representative of the Protestant Church, shortly before he became Chancellor, in 1932. Hitler promised me on his word of honor, to protect the Church, and not to issue any anti-Church laws. He also agreed not to allow pogroms against the Jews, assuring me as follows: “There will be restrictions against the Jews, but there will be no ghettos, no pogroms, in Germany.”
I really believed, given the widespread anti-Semitism in Germany, at that time—that Jews should avoid aspiring to Government positions or seats in the Reichstag. There were many Jews, especially among the Zionists, who took a similar stand. Hitler’s assurance satisfied me at the time. On the other hand, I hated the growing atheistic movement, which was fostered and promoted by the Social Democrats and the Communists. Their hostility toward the Church made me pin my hopes on Hitler for a while.
I am paying for that mistake now; and not me alone, but thousands of other persons like me.
More to the point of our discussion, are some other comments Ericksen made: “The remarkable story of Le Chambon, for example, tells us of French Huguenots who parlayed their pacifist Christian ideals into a system of aid for Jews, rescuing perhaps 5000 potential victims. That is a remarkable story of human decency and courage, well worth the telling, but it should not be presented as if it were typical of Christian behavior. First, most Christians in Europe did not behave in this manner.” Secondly, he says, “individuals in Le Chambon, when asked, tended to explain their protection of Jews in terms of simple humanity, rather than in terms of Christian beliefs.”
This may not be a good example for his first claim since it appears that it was relatively easier to hide these persecuted people and with repercussions less likely to occur than in other areas under German control. Ericksen says “most Christians in Europe did not behave in this manner.” Just how many behaved this way is what we are questioning here. That is why I was hoping we would have better statistical backing for claims like this. And would these other European Christians have behaved more like the people of Le Chambon had it not been so much more difficult to do so? I’m not claiming he is wrong, I’m just asking for verification. Is this another generalization like his accusation concerning Niemoller which once examined cannot be maintained? His statement about the people of Le Chambon not typically acting out of Christian beliefs might be misleading as well. Christian teachings, particularly Jesus’ teachings, emphasized caring for others out of the desire to be children of their Father, out of love for God; and it did speak of God’s deserved judgment against those who mistreat the weak and suffering and persecuted. But all of this naturally develops in the minds of believers into a concern for others out of a sense of care for people just because they are people; “protection . . . in terms of simple humanity,” as Ericksen puts it. So it cannot be argued that these rescuers would have acted the same had they lacked their particular Christian beliefs. We need better evidence than what Ericksen offers. He does provide references for many of his claims, and there we may find the answers we are looking for. But until we can access and examined those sources, we should be cautious to accept all of his conclusions.
How? In Niemoller’s own words, he did exactly what Ericksen said he did. Ericksen said this.
As for Niemöller himself, he never mentioned in his historical writing that he had joined the Nazi Party as early as 1923; nor did he acknowledge that he and his brother Martin had voted for Hitler through the elections of 1933 and welcomed Hitler’s rise to power as enthusiastically as many other pastors and priests in Germany.
Those are facts which Niemöller acknowledges. How is this a misrepresentation of any kind?
Yes. That speaks of French Huguenots rescuing Jews, and also says that “most Christians in Europe did not behave in this manner”.
You seem to be very interested in statistics, but as soon as we look at them closely you stop being interested. For example, you presented the number of German pastors who signed the Pfarrernotbund in 1933 as significant (and presented it in a very misleading way), but when we looked closer at the facts we found that they were even worse than you had imagined. You haven’t mentioned them since.
Yes, you’re “just asking questions”. You already provided some evidence which ironically substantiated the view that most Christians supported the Nazis; in 1933 only 37% of Protestant pastors in Germany had signed the Pfarrernotbund, and by 1935 that had fallen to 26%. That means the overwhelming majority of them were not signatories.
Which accusation concerning Niemöller cannot be maintained?
How is it misleading? He is quoting what they actually said when describing their motivations, not making up his own ideas about what motivated them.
Some contributors to this post have praised Daniel Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners. I should point out that historians hold a very low opinion of Goldhagen’s book. Here’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on his book:
The book had a “mostly scathing” reception among historians,[3][84][85][86] who were vocal in condemning it as ahistorical.[87] “[W]hy does this book, so lacking in factual content and logical rigour, demand so much attention?” Raul Hilberg wondered.[88] The pre-eminent Jewish-American historian Fritz Stern denounced the book as unscholarly and full of racistGermanophobia.[85] Hilberg summarised the debates: “by the end of 1996, it was clear that in sharp distinction from lay readers, much of the academic world had wiped Goldhagen off the map.”[89]
Really? Who praised it? Puck said he had read it and found it a “good read”. Is that what you mean by “Some contributors… have praised”?. I commented on several of its weaknesses, and said it made one important point (which was unrelated to my argument).
Of course they are. Two scholars—historians, scientists, whatever—may seek to be completely honest in their investigation of a matter and yet come to quite different conclusions. Opposing views are constantly being argued in journals and books and lectures, and as such the participants are apologists, defenders of their differing views. That’s what the word means. People who attain different religious (and non-religious) beliefs, including Christians, do so by attempting to arrive at their beliefs through intellectually honest methods. So the Christian who writes an apologetic, be it concerning Christians and the holocaust or the historicity of the Exodus or whatever, are being quite honest. At least we should assume they are. Anyone can be dishonest but we must assume that without evidence to the contrary that they are honest. Whether a holocaust researcher or a Christian apologist, pending such counter-evidence, we have no right to assume either comes to their conclusions by any less than honest means. If someone thinks they have good reason to think the NT is true and that it teaches that the Exodus occurred, they will and should consider that background information as relevant to their investigation of the evidence for the Exodus. Christian apologists, atheist apologists, professional historians, professional scientists—they’re all ultimately “simply investigating facts.” Picking out one group and accusing them of dishonesty by applying to them a title which some consider pejorative (“apologists”) is just special pleading.
This is the most obvious meaning of this parable (Matt 13.24–30, 36–43). The sower planted good seed, which became the true followers of Christ (v38). The bad seed (or weeds or tares) are the “sons of the evil one” (38) and are mixed with the Christians and allowed to remain until the day of judgment (29, 30). The “evildoers” will then be separated from the “sons of the kingdom” and be punished (41, 42). Since these “sons of the evil one” are mixed with the “righteous” until the judgment day, it’s clear that they will appear to be normal Christians. One must profess to be a Christian to be taken as one.
My source rounded 37% to “around 40%.” There is nothing dishonest about rounding off numbers. It did fall to 26% but that may indicate no change in beliefs but rather a change in what one would wish to profess publicly once it became more dangerous to state one’s views. And it certainly did become more dangerous to express one’s views. One manifesto of protest resulted in hundreds of arrests. Again, many of those who did not publicly state their views may have remained silent simply to avoid drawing attention to themselves if they were involved in any clandestine activities. Many others may have remained silent simply out of the desire for self-preservation. So this does not necessarily indicate that anti-Semitism grew worse as you claim.
Whether early on with 37% or later on with 26%, you still think that you have the right to say that there were not “many” denominational leaders who supported the emergency league and then the Confessing Church? To say that a quarter of all of the German pastors who supported it are not “many” pastors, is an “apologetic spin” on the topic (as you mean the terms) if I’ve ever heard one.
It was more than just protesting anti-Semitism but it was at least that. And later statements from the Confessing Church clearly protested the treatment of Jews.
I can’t find the statement I made you are referring to so I’ll just say that it is not inconceivable that someone could be silent and inactive and still oppose the regime. Some may have had no opportunity to act. We can’t just condemn someone without knowing their life situation.
The source you referenced, “The German Churches and the Nazi State” included the following statement:
The general tactic by the leadership of both Protestant and Catholic churches in Germany was caution with respect to protest and compromise with the Nazi state leadership where possible. There was criticism within both churches of Nazi racialized ideology and notions of “Aryanism,” and movements emerged in both churches to defend church members who were considered “non-Aryan” under Nazi racial laws (e.g., Jews who had converted). Yet throughout this period there was virtually no public opposition to antisemitism or any readiness by church leaders to publicly oppose the regime on the issues of antisemitism and state-sanctioned violence against the Jews. There were individual Catholics and Protestants who spoke out on behalf of Jews, and small groups within both churches that became involved in rescue and resistance activities (for example, the White Rose and Herman Maas).
I don’t see how there could have been “public opposition” other than that of the relatively few brave “individual Catholics and Protestants” who spoke out such as those I mentioned in my first response. It would have been simply suicidal. Better to work against the regime, as much as possible, without notice.
No that is not what the word means. Professional historians are not called apologists when they follow standard historiographical methodology. An apologist is someone who already holds a preconceived idea, which they then seek to defend. That is the opposite of seeking out the evidence to determine whether or not it is true.
I have not said anything at all about who is and isn’t being honest.
I have not picked out one group and accused them of dishonesty. Let me remind you that it was you who introduced the term “apologist” into this discussion. You used it to describe professional historians. Did you pick out one group and accuse them of dishonesty by applying to them a title which some consider perjorative?
No it isn’t. That’s just the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.
I did not say there is anything dishonest about rounding off numbers. I didn’t use the term “dishonest” at all. That’s a term you keep using. I said your description of the numbers was spin, and clearly biased.
I did not claim that it necessarily indicates that anti-Semitism grew worse. The number of times I have to correct you after you attribute false statements to me, is increasing with every exchange.
Yes. It was a pitifully small number. Using the term “many” is spin, and obscures the facts.
Many denominational leaders signed the Pfarrernotbund.
An initial 37% of denominational leaders signed the Pfarrernotbund in 1933; by 1935 support from denominational leaders had fallen to 26%.
The first statement very obviously obscures the facts, and gives the impression that the Pfarrernotbund received significant support from denominational leaders. The second statement declares the facts dispassionately, and reveals the true state of affairs.
Why won’t you say “The overwhelming number of denominational leaders did not support the emergency league or the Confessing Church”?
They were still outnumbered by the overwhelming majority. Your determination to avoid saying this is extremely distasteful.
No, it was you who first used the word “apologetic” and suggested that my source was an “apologetic work” instead of an “objective historical analysis” (21). I merely pointed out that the best historians and scientists often have views to defend and are in that sense apologists and that this does not in any way diminish how objective their work is. When Josh defends his GEA, he’s being an apologist for his view but he is not being any less objective than any other scientist. That’s simply what the word means. Notice that I did not accuse any professional historians of dishonesty. I call them apologists because I think that as apologists per se, they would be honest in their work. I pointed out that it is only a term that some (like yourself) consider pejorative.
No, the No True Scotsman fallacy does not apply since it is Jesus who is here essentially defining a true follower, a true Christian. I would think Jesus would have a right to make that definition, wouldn’t you? He is saying that there will be pretend Christians who appear to be Christians. They will all be together and to all outward appearances the wicked will be taken to be Christians. It will be God who sees their wickedness and will judge them.
Here is your statement: “Firstly it wasn’t even 40%, and secondly it fell to 26% just two years later, as anti-Semitism grew worse .” (emphasis yours!) (25.) It appears rather, that the number of times I have to correct you after you attribute false statements to me, is increasing with every exchange.
Because we do not know that. We know that a quarter of all the pastors in Germany did support the Confessing Church, which taken in itself was a large number. The majority did not sign. As I’ve pointed out, this does not indicate that they all opposed the Confessing Church. Many likely supported it but refused to sign out of fear or otherwise out of the desire to remain under the Nazi radar. In fact, given these two factors, fear and the desire to otherwise be unnoticed, and given the number of signatures alone, we cannot even say that a majority of pastors opposed the Confessing Church! There is nothing distasteful about this conclusion. It’s just an honest assessment of the evidence. Other evidence and documents may change this conclusion.
Other than the numbers I had offered I don’t see any others. Yes, you did mention the change from 37% to 26% as for those supporting the Pfarrernotbund from ’33 to ’35 and we discussed that. But other than that I’m just asking what statistics you have to support your claims. I can’t look at any unless you offer some. Can you give any indication of the number of German Christians who were 1) strongly pro-Nazi, 2) complacently accepting of Hitler’s policies, 3) complacent but opposed to the Nazis, and 4) actively opposed to them. How many Germans of each group were atheists and agnostics? Are there any other important categories which might fit these four? Then we should question some of the basic theologies of the Christians we have discussed. If many had the unusual views of someone like Kittel, then we can see how anti-Semitism could be present in their teachings and could develop to even worse extremes. Notice that there was no biblical justification for his views and much biblical teaching opposing it (e.g., Matt 25). There is a place for speculative theology so long as it does not promote evil as Kittel’s did, and when it is no longer held tentatively but allowed to dictate political and ethical actions and behavior, it then becomes especially dangerous. Sadly, this is the extreme that liberal theology reached in early 20th century Germany. Once theologians think they can deviate from biblical teachings to the extreme Kittel did, the scripture can be made to say whatever one wants it to say.
Statistics like the ones I would hope to see just may not be available. So I’m just asking if you have access to any. The references you offered do not provide any further information applying to the questions I raised.
I’ll accept that correction; I misremembered, and thought you had used it in the previous thread
You did more than that. You characterized the work of historians as the work of apologists, which is not true. Being an apologist is the opposite of being objective; it’s explicitly taking a position and attempting to defend that position from criticism. That’s not being objective. You (mis)characterized historians as apologists in order to try and justify your appeal to Christian apologists in an attempt to contradict professional historians.
You characterized professional historians as being on one “side” of the issue being discussed, and Christian apologists as being on the other “side”. In reality
only Christian apologists are on any “side”; professional historians (when they are acting as professional historians), are not taking sides.
Let’s remember what’s going on here. We have academic sources saying most churches and most Christians supported the Nazis, and we have you trying to defend the churches and Christians in Germany by attempting to argue that the academics are wrong. You’re the only person doing apologetics here, and you need a lot more evidence than you’ve supplied so far.
As I pointed out, this is inconsistent of you. When I used the word “apologist” you claimed I was insinuating dishonesty.
But I don’t consider it pejorative.
That is exactly my point. If you really were interested in the numbers, you would have looked for more than those you found. But as I pointed out, even the numbers you presented support me rather than you.
In 1932, “Of the priests in Germany in ’32 (21,000), a third would clash with the Reich and several hundred were killed” (your words). To put it another way, more than 60% didn’t clash with the Reich.
In 1933 “Nearly 40% of the country’s pastors signed onto the League opposing the anti-Semitism” (your words). To put it another way, only 37% signed the league in 1933, and by 1935 that number had fallen to 26%.
These are the statistics you have provided, and it’s clear they are in direct agreement with what I said; most Christians in Germany supported the Nazis.
Note how in both instances, when citing these statistics you cited them in an explicitly biased way. In the first case you said “a third [of the priests in Germany] would clash with the Reich”, instead of saying “Two thirds of the priests in Germany didn’t clash with the Reich”. In the second case you said "Nearly 40% of the country’s pastors signed onto the League ", instead of saying “Less than 40% of the country’s pastors signed onto the League, and two years later that figure had fallen to 26%”. This is spin. This is deliberately biased reporting.
Not only that, but the first number actually grew as you comnented on it. The first time, you said “Nearly 40%”, and later this turned into “And going back to the 40%”. So you actually inflated it twice, firstly by giving the impression that it was almost 40%, and secondly by claiming explicitly that it was 40%.
Note also how you make statements for which you don’t think any statistical support is needed. For example, you said “Under Hitler’s regime, most professed Christians simply said nothing in order to survive”, without providing any evidence for this, statistical or otherwise. Where is your evidence for this? How do you know “most professed Christians” acted this way, for this reason? Where are your statistics?
No that’s not what you’re asking, because even though I provided evidence for my claims, you insisted that I provide answers to the statistical questions you raised. This is a distraction; you are not dealing with the evidence I provided, and you are trying to change the subject instead.
Ironically you are using the same tactics as Holocaust deniers. When presented with clear evidence, instead of addressing the actual evidence they say “But you haven’t answered this question, you haven’t supplied these figures, you haven’t provided this data”. They do this to imply that unless those data points can be supplied, the historical fact of the Holocaust cannot be established. However, what they deliberately avoid is that the historical fact of the Holocaust can be established even in the complete absence of all the data they demand.
Notably, they typically avoid addressing the actual evidence which supports the case that the Holocaust is a historical fact; instead they want to talk about anything else.
This is a gross rewriting of history. Firstly Kittel’s anti-Semitic theological views were not unusual. Secondly your attempt to blame “liberal theology” is transparently self-serving. The anti-Semitic theology of the Nazi era was not the product of “liberal theology” or of theologians thinking they could “deviate from biblical teaching”. On the contrary, it was the product of centuries of traditional theology, including a particularly toxic strain of Lutheranism. Far from being the result of liberal theologians feeling they were able to deviate from what the Bible said, it was the result of traditional theologians feeling they were upholding what the Bible said.
These questions are distractions, because we don’t need to answer them in order to determine whether or not most Christians supported the Nazis. We already know that in 19333 about 98% of Germans were Christians, with the majority being Protestant (around 67%), and a substantial minority Catholic (around 32%). By 1939 Protestants accounted for around 54%, Catholics 40%, other theists 3.5%, and atheists and agnostics 1.5%. So we know there were virtually no Germans self-identifying as atheist or agnostic. That actually renders one of your questions void.
Even if this was true, it is irrelevant since they offer evidence for the statement I made. To date you have failed to address the sources I provided. You might want to pay particular attention to what’s said about church teachings in Germany at the time.
I am not sure if you understand what the “No true Scotsman” fallacy is. The fact that Jesus can differentiate reliably between true and false Christians is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not you are committing the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. This is what the fallacy looks like.
No true Christian would support the Nazis.
Consequently, anyone supporting the Nazis could not have been Christian.
Therefore no Christians supported the Nazis.
If you agree with this reasoning, then you are committing the “No true Scotsman” fallacy. If you don’t agree with this reasoning, then the meaning of the parable of the tares is yet another irrelevant distraction from the topic at hand.
No. You are misreading what I wrote. The words you quoted from me do not say “The falling number of signatories necessarily indicates anti-Semitism was increasing”, or “proving anti-Semitism was increasing”, or anything similar. I did not appeal to this figure as evidence for the rise in anti-Semitism. I said the number of signatories fell as anti-Semitism increased. That statement takes the rise of anti-Semitism as an established fact, not as a claim which needs to be supported. If you want to deny that anti-Semitism grew worse from 1933 to 1935, we can have that discussion.
Again, you’re attempting to avoid the fact that this figure is contra-indicatory to your attempt to deny most Christians supported the Nazis.
I didn’t say it was evidence that they all opposed the Confessing Church. I said it indicated the majority did not support it. That is absolutely indicated by the statistic. In 1933 only 37% signed the league, and by 1935 that number had fallen to 26%. That indicates the overwhelming majority did not support it.
How is that a rational conclusion from the evidence? Given that the number fell in just two years, how is that an indication that “Many likely supported it”? You’re interpreting signing the league as support for the Confessing Church, and you’re interpreting not signing the league as support for the Confessing Church. How is this rational? This is completely unsubstantiated reasoning. It’s mere pre-suppositionalist apologetics.
Let’s take another example.
Suppose a survey indicates 75% of US citizens agree with the statement “Only white people are human”.
Suppose a newspaper reports this survey with the words “Many US citizens agree that non-white people are human”.
Would you say this is an accurate report of the survey, or would you say it is clearly biased? Would you attempt to claim that the other 75% actually agree that non-white people are human, but they just didn’t feel confident saying so?
Every time the Holocaust is raised on this forum, it’s fascinating to see the efforts various groups make to distance themselves from it. No one wants to take responsibility. Apparently it just happened in some mysterious way, and no beliefs (religious or scientific), were responsible. At least the atheists and agnostics here don’t try to claim that atheists and agnostics were the heroes.
Late in life Luther wrote diatribes against the Jews after they would not respond to his evangelistic appeals. Earlier, his words were sympathetic and gracious. Most Lutheran scholars take the latter writings as a regrettable deviation from his otherwise sound theology. Luther was here indulging in the same kind of disregard for clear biblical teaching Kittel was guilty of. Liberal theology is plagued with the intrinsic characteristic of being able to disregard biblical teaching whenever it finds it convenient. Though we don’t usually think of Luther as a liberal, he did the same thing here. There is nothing in the anti-Semitic writings of Kittel or any other theologian that can be justified biblically. The problem is not to be found in the Bible, it is to be found in our own human wickedness which will twist the Bible to say what we want it to say.
I doubt if I will respond to any more of your comments on this thread. Any reader who is truly interested in our discussion (I doubt if there is anyone) should look at the original statements and responses I’ve made to see if you have honestly responded to them. Let the reader judge.
, Allen!