According to Hillary Clinton “Christian beliefs have to be changed.” This video shows without hesitation Hillary’s feelings on Christianity. I always thought of her as a socialist; but for sometime now I have realized that she, and her associates, are crossing the line into Communism. Communism, the home of atheism.
Take the time now in order to view this video and hear for yourself what she says. Do we really want this woman running our country? I don’t and neither should you.
altruistico 
She’s getting more and more creepy by the day. But Nov 8th is coming, and the Deplorables come with it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen !!!!!
Her name calling and other actions only go to prove how little she feels for the middle class and our Capitalist form of government. The likes of Hillary Clinton are nothing more than Communists hidden behind the names Progressive and Liberal.
I am a Deplorable and can not wait until the 8th of November to cast my ballet with some degree of pride.
I wish to thank you for your comment. It is greatly appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and yours always.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
So are you voting for trump? I’m sure God would attest to his outstanding christian values. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello, Violet;
I do not profess to know the thinking of God nor what He will attest or will not attest to.
I thank you for your comment. It is greatly appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and yours always.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLike
Then let me ask you…do you think trump demonstrates christian values?
LikeLike
Welcome back, Violet;
Again, in a different way, you ask me to judge Mr. Trump. I’m not around Mr. Trump enough to know whether, or not, he has bold Christian behavior or values.
Some time back I published a post entitled: “Can an atheist be a good moral person?” Your question is along the same lines of what was posted way back then. At least the title of our questions seemingly align. Here is part of what I shared in that post.
“Can an atheist act in moral and ethical ways? Certainly, he can. All humans still retain the image of God upon them, even after the fall of Adam and Eve into sin. The image of God was effaced at the fall, but it was not erased, and so man still understands right and wrong no matter how many try to say otherwise. Even atheists react to this inherent knowledge of right and wrong, some even to the extent of living exemplary lives.
C.S. Lewis put it this way: if a man sees another in danger, the first instinct is to rush to help (altruism). But a second voice intervenes and says, “No, don’t endanger yourself,” which is in keeping with self-preservation. But then a third voice comes into play and says, “No, you ought to help.” Where does that third voice come from, asks Lewis? This is what is referred to as the “ought-ness” of life. Morality is what people do, but ethics describe what people ought to do. And yes, people know what they ought to do, but that doesn’t mean that they always act according to that knowledge.
I do hope that this response will set your mind to ease and answers your question. Once again, Violet, I do thank you for your comment. It is, as always, greatly appreciated.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLike
What is wrong with assessing a candidate and judging whether or not they are fit to hold office? If you can’t do that you shouldn’t be voting.
I am an atheist, and have no problem admitting both clinton and trump have the moral integrity of RATS, and neither of them are fit to be the president of our country. Alas, since you say I should vote for Clinton so our country will be thrown into an atheist revolution, perhaps I will. And you should vote for Trump to represent your christian values of humbleness, charity, devotion to god, evangelization of the faith, pro-life stance, and love for the people who are “the least of these.”
Good luck with that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet;
I held a strong feeling you were an atheist. I have many who are atheists and correspond with me on many topics and views. You are probably aware that, here in the United States, atheism is a religion for purposes of the first Amendment and has been declared so by the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and other Appellant and district courts throughout our land.
Your view that “both Clinton and Trump have the moral integrity of RATS, and neither of them are fit to be the president of our country”, is not voicing your opinion from your religious view but from a personal view of which your religion does not object. My religion, however, does object to such action and judgment and thus I can not make the same assessment as you.
I have not stated with whom I will vote; nor have I suggested to you who you should vote. We each have to vote our own conscience. Would I prefer a candidate who is Christian. Yes. Perhaps even you might prefer a candidate who is a Christian; only because you know that the nation might be more at ease and love might abound. No one, I would think, should be against loving our neighbors. Do you?
Again, Violet, I do thank you for your comments. They truly are welcomed and appreciated.
God bless you;
Michael
LikeLike
If you are trying to imply that religious people are not judgemental, you’re completely and utterly deluded. But hey, if you want to stick with that line, you go right ahead. If you want to believe atheism is a religion, also feel free to do so.
I see you have learned from the bible how to speak in circles and cover your own ass astoundly well. I’m voting for YOU to be the next president…I’ll put you in as a write in! 😉
LikeLike
Violet, Violet, Violet;
Why do you do this to yourself? In trying to rouse me you make yourself mad and say things of which, though sarcastic, are meaningless. Not once have I said that [supposed or professing] religious people are not judgmental. I think that everyone has a degree or two of being judgmental. It’s our flawed human nature and I do not speak for mankind on being judgmental but merely for myself and what I would consider true Christian behavior. “What good is served” by my saying anything of which might belittle another?
It’s very easy, Violet, for someone to “play the king” and “look the fool” in what we say and do. It’s the element of pride of which leads us to do so. Do not get me wrong; I have spent much of my 66 years in “playing the king and being the fool.” [and] I do not choose to spend the remainder of this life in like manner. Nor do I invite you too. For that is what we do when we serve to judge others. In our own pride we “play the king” and “look the fool”. If pride and judging me serves you, then let it serve you well, to think of me as completely and utterly deluded. Believe me; there is little more embarrassing than tripping over one’s own tongue.
There is a difference between the kind of pride that God hates (Proverbs 8:13) and the kind of pride we feel about a job well done. The kind of pride that stems from self-righteousness is sin, and God hates it because it is a hindrance to seeking Him. Psalm 10:4 explains that the proud are so consumed with themselves that their thoughts are far from God: “In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.” This kind of haughty pride is the opposite of the spirit of humility that God seeks: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). The “poor in spirit” are those who recognize their utter spiritual bankruptcy and their inability to come to God aside from His divine grace. The proud, on the other hand, are so blinded by their pride that they think they have no need of God or, worse, that God should accept them as they are because they deserve His acceptance.
Your statement: “If you want to believe atheism is a religion, also feel free to do so” is a good example of how you deny truth based upon your own pride.. It is not whether I believe atheism is a religion; but rather, what the courts have declared it to be that makes it a religion. You boast in your perceived knowledge of what is truth and that is the self-righteous pride of which I speak. Because you are young you do not realize how much you need truth and how much you need God. I tell you this one truth, Violet, before it’s all said and done your knee will bend before Almighty God and your pride and disbelief with not serve you. Believe that….
Now, since you know a little bit more about me and how I think, it is time to answer your question. “What is wrong with assessing a candidate and judging whether or not they are fit to hold office?” There is nothing wrong with assessing a candidate for my own purposes and decision making. If I make an open and public portrayal of a candidate, based upon my own criteria, am I not making a judgment upon both? For publically lifting one am I not seemingly belittling the other? That would be a form of judging both. What if I am wrong about the candidate of which I publically endorse? Don’t you think that others will find me as having tripped over my own tongue? I do and they’d be right.
But there is an even bigger reason why I keep those thoughts and words to myself [besides voting my own conscience]. “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” We live within a society of which we are blessed in having a right to vote for those selected to be in authority. But it is God who gives us the candidates from which to choose. We must choose based upon our own conscience whether we will elect a good leader or an evil leader.
I also believe the candidates placed before us, and we elect, will serve as God’s instrument of grace or God’s wrath. If that person serves as an instrument of God’s grace; we should praise God for His blessings. If they serve as an instrument of God’s wrath then we must consider 2 Chronicles 7:14 ” if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
Thank you, Violet, for your comments and for dropping by to spend a moment with me. I do appreciate both.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and yours always.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLike
Speaking of misconceptions about people, I should tell you I’m not young. I was a devout christian for over 40 years.
Despite the usual christian drivel of my being condemned, I did actually learn something from our conversation. I’ve never heard a christian actually say the elected president could be used for the wrath of god….if you look at this election that way, I suppose that does make sense from a christian point of view. Of course this is not my point of view, where I believe this candidates are a result of our broken two party system.
As for whether or not I would vote for a christian in office, I only ever have, because we have only ever had christian presidents.
LikeLike
Violet;
How would this be? If you’re not in excess of 66.5 years young then I reserve the privilege of referring to you as “young lady” [smiling]. If this is okay with you…
Likewise I am quite happy that you were able to take something positive with you from our conversation. That is always a plus for us both. You speak of our two party political system as being broken. I can not disagree with you. I would go so far as to say that the whole of the world is broken. Going so far as to say that our Christian belief system is broken as well. It does not give me great pleasure, in fact; it gives me no pleasure at all, in saying that Christianity is broken.
As a child attending church it all seemed so pure and clean. Pastors gave their sermon of which were neither sanitized nor meant to feel good. They were filled with hell-fire and damnation. You also learned that “if we confess our sin before Almighty God” and repent; He loved us and was quick to forgive us. Then you weren’t told to be tolerant of others; you were taught to love thy neighbor. Then a Pastor had to be married and of good standing within the church and the community; today a homosexual can stand at the pulpit and speak on appeasement, tolerance and acceptance with no mention of love, repentance or Hell and damnation. Not to mention the hypocrisy and apostasy which now plague Christianity and many of it’s churches. Christianity has embarked into the age of Laodicea.
If my mentioning your need for truth and God was received as condemnation I trust you will forgive me. For that was not the intension of that mentioning. Perhaps too you will share with me the why’s of your leaving the church after such a lengthy period. I would be interested in knowing.
Thank you, violet, for your comments and sharing with me today. Both are, truly, appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and yours always.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLike
I’ve enjoyed reading your conversation, Violet. Although I can’t help feeling it ended far too soon, insofar as the exchange about Trump and God having a plan to use him in some fashion goes, I’d share the old saying “God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick,” or even the more biblical, “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.” This is a common theme in the Scriptures, consider the case of Job, king Nebuchadnezzar, and of course Jesus Christ, since each situation, though featuring elements contrary to God’s perfectly loving nature, were ultimately used for God’s glory. I understand such complex conversations can sound as though people are “ass covering”, yet, that’s only true if what we’re discussing isn’t true.
By which I mean to write, if there’s truly an awesome God, one of love, patience and grace, even saving grace, then our conversations are going to become increasing complex, and that’s true of everything actual. For example, particle interactions, eyesight, thought life, to describe such events accurately might sound like covering one’s ass just on account of how complex our language becomes compared to say. . .an author writing fiction. Christianity can’t compete for simplicity against lies because true things aren’t simple.
I’d write you can comfortable rest in Christianity as you can rest in Christ, with which the language in use isn’t simply some cunning structure of rhetoric used to defend an ideology, but rather, we’d be discussing an actual person, namely Jesus, who lived, taught, was baptised, died and was buried, returning again upon the third day. That’s not simply theology, that’s contemporary historic studies.
LikeLike
OSC, I appreciate your point of view from the christian perspective, because it was also my own perspective for many decades. That god can use evil things for good, and how “Christianity can’t compete for simplicity against lies because true things aren’t simple.” You have stated your points eloquently, but these principles of faith did not hold up under scrutiny for me.
You give examples of how god can use evil for good, but it doesn’t always work out that way. I worked with victims of war crime and torture, and there was no good there. A christian may say, “often times people don’t know what good will come of things…sometimes the good takes generations to arrive.” That explanation is not something I can accept. Thinking a deity it’s somehow giving you blessings you don’t recognize, or that it might help you three generations down the road, is like pissing in the wind. If a deity demands to be worshipped, than it should be able to give clearer signs to it’s worshippers than this.
Your second point, the one about how god can’t be measured against simple lies because He is complicated, also doesn’t hold up for me. This is basically means any situation is a free-for-all of interpretation. A deity worth his salt would have once again made things more clear; for example, he could have waited to confuse our languages until after the bible was written.
I don’t reply to you to convince you of anything or change your mind. I just want to point out that christianity looks at life through one lens, and that lens has faults which few christians will acknowledge. Instead it excuses these faults. Yes, you have faith and so this lens is acceptable to you…but when a critical point of questioning is reached, some people find the explanations fall short.
LikeLike
Hello, Violet;
I know that you have addressed OSC directly and I will not intrude. however, there is one small section of your comment I would, with your permission, like to address if I may. It addresses nothing more than your comment of: [I worked with victims of war crime and torture, and there was no good there.] A Christian may say, “often times people don’t know what good will come of things… sometimes the good takes generations to arrive.”
Please allow me to know.
Thank you.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure pro-slavery Christians were horrified to hear Abolitionists insist that their deeply-seated biases about African-Americans being inferior due to the Curse of Ham, their deeply-held assertion that God structured slavery as a permanent institution, and that their deeply-held belief that they ought to own slaves were a misunderstanding of Scripture. Christians have changed their beliefs before and it’s a matter of time before it happens again. Even on pro-life issues, there are pro-choice Christians out there. But too often, Christians just want babies to be born into the world and care nothing about proving them with food, shelter, health-care, education – too few churches support orphanages or run them. Too many churches want women to only be wives and mothers and to cut them off from the means to support themselves and their babies when their husbands leave them high and dry. Remember the guy that fathered fifteen to twenty kids by four or five women? There’s more shame on those women for having bad taste than on the man for being serially unfaithful / abandoning his families.
LikeLike
Your view that “Christians have changed their beliefs before and it’s a matter of time before it happens again” has no merit. People have changed their worldview but true Christendom has not. What was sin to God a thousand years ago is still sin today. If you knew me at all then you’d know that I have said countless times that there are “professing Christians of whom have no substance”. And it is true. In your comment you lump every person under the same banner of Christianity and it’s just no true.
Thank you for your comments. they are greatly appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and yours always.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLike
On that score, given that God himself has ordained genocide and ordered the deaths of infants, it doesn’t seem like it was sin to him to have them murdered. After all, God’s sovereign over who lives and dies – who are you to say that any whom God wants dead shouldn’t die?
LikeLike
You will never see this in the mainstream media. Hopefully, Trump will see it and start railing against her on this issue.
LikeLike
I know you’re right about main street media and the coverage they conceal or lie about. If one knows anything about Communism then they will realize that Karl Marx, in His [and Engel’s] Communist Manifesto said that one of the ten pillars of moving Communism forward was to control the news media. It is apparent that they have done so. I have a very good video on Marxism on my site altruistico interactive. I hope you will spend the time in order to view it through.
We could only hope someone knows a way of getting it to him [Trump] and will do so, Donald. Thank you for your comments. They are always appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and yours always.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
Communism is a political system. Atheism is not political, it’s about religion. Two different things.
LikeLike
Hello, essiep;
Yes, I am very much aware of what Christianity/atheism is and also familiar with Communism [Marxism] and Capitalism. My point was simply this: Our country was formed as a Republic with Judeo-Christian beliefs. Hillary and her associates want to bring a Communistic/Socialistic form of government to Washington, D. C. in January. With her agenda will come a furtherance of legislation which will be designed to cripple Christianity further. Perhaps to the point of instituting atheism. I am lead by her approach to our current system of government and her views on both Christianity and a Capitalistic form of government. It should be also be pointed out that here, in America, atheism is a religion and for many years Communist Russia was associated with atheism.
I wish to thank you for your comments. They are greatly appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and yours always.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not only will I never deny my faith, God willing to my death on an execution blade, but I will keep spreading Christianity in the real world, on YouTube, on social media platforms, and even by posting blogs to WordPress! Hallelujah! I’ve posted a few for Christianity and against anti-Christian views so far.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Communism and Nazism are like Islam political/religious systems. The fact that Christianity separates the state from religious activity, in order to protect religious freedom, is attribute distinct to Christianity. Typically, rulers have always tried to justify their claim to power with religion.
LikeLike
I’m not so sure, Tom, that Stalin and Lennon would agree they justified their claim to power on religion. Nor for that matter Chavez or Castro. No more so than Marx would advocate Capitalism. I do however agree with you opening statements.
Thank you, Tom, for your comments. They are always greatly appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and yours always.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLike
The religious claims to power are not obvious, but they are there.
The Communists were godless. They justified themselves based upon what the saw as the inevitable march of history. Because they were the vanguard of the proletariat, they rightfully ruled. Call it scientific socialism.
The Nazis, equally godless, believed in racial supremacy. The Nazis rested their claim to power based up the science of eugenics. Hitler ruled as the most perfect member of the Aryan race.
LikeLike
Hello, Tom;.
Perhaps I am getting in well over my head in debating this topic with you; for I am already beginning to feel the twinges of defeat. Though I am compelled to march on until I am laid to rest upon the field of complete intellectual humiliation.
To place your comments in an analogy of a baseball game. Usually around the second or third inning you start throwing me curve balls. Your most recent comment is no exception. On one hand you lead me to believe the road to power is given through providence [The religious claims to power are not obvious, “but they are there”]. On the other you claim that such rise to power is inherent by means of science [scientific socialism, science of eugenics]. In my mind this duplicity can only mean that you are saying that scientific socialism and science of eugenics are thought of, taught and accepted as religion in and by their own nature or right. [and] That is to place both religion and science in terms of Relativism.
Unlike Communism and relativism Nazis were given great support by European Christendom in their attack against Jews…
At first sight, the very idea that Nazism bears any relation to Christianity seems absurd. Yet before dismissing such an idea, we have we consider certain similarities. Certainly there were marked Christian influences on Nazism. Christian protagonists and texts have levelled spiteful accusations at Jews since the advent of Christianity. Part of the very foundations of the faith are ideas of Jewish betrayal, hard-heartedness and deicide. New Testament characters such as Judas, Herod, Saul, the Pharisees and the Jerusalem crowd (baying ‘Crucify him!’) have shaped, over centuries, European attitudes towards Jews. Such accusations and the demonization of Jewry are based on the Christian idea that it has, as a faith and a civilization, superseded Judaism. For Christians, God transferred his covenant and favor to them; rather than being the chosen people, Jews simply became stubborn unbelievers.
In the beginning Martin Luther held the Jewish people in the highest regard and defended them against the cruelty of the Pope and Catholicism of the day. However at the end of Luther’s life he relentlessly demonized the Jew and denounced Judaism entirely. Nazi Germany was both a product of, and established in, Christian Europe. The Führer himself was educated in the strictest of Catholic institutions – a Benedictine monastery in Bavaria. More than that, he’d been a church chorister. Without doubt, childhood experiences help to mold adulthood. Christian influences certainly remained important in Hitler’s life: his favorite bed-time reading was Martin Luther. Luther had particular advice to offer concerning those who had failed to follow Christ – the Jews.
From this, and other evidence, I see a vast contrast between the philosophy’s of Communism and Nazism and the influences religion and science had upon them. Even at that Communist atheism was not without it’s own deity and lord – that of “self”.
Tom, I thank you for taking the time to read my ramblings. It is always greatly appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and yours always.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
@altruistico
Interesting reply. I don’t think you are getting in over your head.
😆
I’m wondering if I was wise to bring up this topic.
I think Atheism is a religion. Atheism is a dumb religion, but it meets the definition => http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t. Communism and Nazism are just different Atheist sects. Both practice materialism and worship man in the form of the state. Alternatively, we could call Communism and Nazism pagan constructs. Paganism is just demon worship, making Paganism godless. And Hitler and Stalin demanded respect approaching the worship the Roman emperors demanded.
Are Communism and Nazism in some way vastly different? I don’t think so. Their differences arise primarily in the culture influences of the people that made up these regimes. The Nazis took over Germany, and the Communists took over Russia. If you compare the Communist regime in Russia with the Communist regime in China, I think you will find similar differences.
Germany had a strong Christian heritage. Hitler could not uproot that overnight. So Hitler used that nation’s prejudices against the Jews to create an enemy of the state. When the Germans saw the persecution of the Jews, at some level they empathized. Each learned to fear to having the power that persecuted the Jews turned against himself. Moreover, each at some level knew that the persecution of the Jews was wrong, but it was easier to deny that guilt and praise the Führer than to admit complicity in genocide.
Does the persecution of the Jews somehow make Nazism like Christianity? No. You dealt with the same sort of issue in your conversation with Violet here => https://altruistico.wordpress.com/2016/10/16/hillary-christians-in-america-must-deny-their-faith/#comment-8512.
Hatred of the Jews is, of course, not Biblical. Jesus and the 12 apostles who spread the Christian faith were Jews. With one or two exceptions the men who wrote the Bible were Jews. There is nothing in the Bible that tells us to hate the Jews. Jesus died for both the sins of the Jews and Gentiles, and it was both Jews and Gentiles who put Him up on that cross.
LikeLike
I totally agree, Tom, atheism is a religion; at least here in the United States where our courts have deemed it so. And, so it is with Secular Humanism; which to me is more treacherous to Christendom than atheism could ever be. But that is yet for another discussion.
Your comment: “Communism and Nazism are just different Atheist sects. Both practice materialism and worship man in the form of the state.” Though it is true that Adolph Hitler wanted to be deified that is where Communism and Nazism (Fascism) dislodge. Your view that “Communism and Nazism are just different Atheist sects” holds little or no truth in 20th Century history. At least as I see it. Thus 20th Century Atheist regimes are responsible for the worst massacres (Holocaust) in history is unfounded. Josef Stalin’s murder of 5 million Russian peasants and Adolph Hitler’s murder of 6 million Jews hold great similarities; but those similarities end with the number of dead.
The argument: “20th Century Atheist regimes are responsible for the worst massacres in history” has become a thought-terminating cliché which serves both as a cautionary tale of what happens when we turn away from God, and also as an attempt to equal the ledger in discussions relating to religious violence.
Its key premise erroneously presupposes we accept that atheism was pivotal in causing violence in the fascist and communist regimes of the 20th century. Accordingly, “atheistic regimes” are supposedly an example of the dangers of “atheism” in practice. Where we might have previously said, Communist Regimes, or Totalitarian Regimes, for the purposes of argument we rebrand them Atheistic Regimes.
First, as an absolute knockdown Nazi Germany was not even an atheist state. Germany was a 95% Christian country when it went to war in 1939. As Christopher Hitchens was fond of pointing out, the first Treaty signed by the Nazi regime was with the Catholic Church exchanging political influence for control of German education. Hitler ascribed his victories to divine Providence, and encouraged his own personal deification. Soldiers had “Gott mit uns” (“God with us”) inscribed on their belt buckles, and party members took the following oath under God: “I swear in the name of almighty God, my loyalty to the Fuhrer.” Hitler was explicit: Nazi Germany was, and would always be, a Christian nation.
Historians, such as biographer John Toland, cite Hitler’s Catholic background as having an influence on his fervent anti-Semitism. Following meetings with Hitler, General Gerhard Engel and Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber wrote that Hitler was a believer in God. The references to Hitler’s contempt for Christianity in the memoirs of some of his confidantes seem to be the root of the association of Nazism with nonbelief. However, these references are at odds with his public announcements and the memories of some of his other contemporaries. Although his personal religious views varied throughout his life, Nazi public policy contained a consistent commitment to Christianity. The Party developed Positive Christianity which involved a hard line reinterpretation of Scripture that was particularly anti-Semitic with a trajectory towards deifying the Fuhrer himself who was said by Hanns Kerrl, Reichsminister of Church Affairs, to be the “herald of a new revelation.” Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Manheim, ed., New York, 1998, p. 65)
Hitler did not act alone. Using propaganda he fanned the flames of popular Christian anti-Semitism, and promoted a policy of racial purity and Arian superiority. As a scapegoat for the humiliation Germany suffered at Versailles, Jews were reviled as subhuman, commonly held to be treacherous creatures, undeserving of pity–beliefs which made the Final Solution possible.
So the arrow flung at atheism for Nazi atrocities might, at least in part, be redirected towards historical Christian anti-Semitism, not to mention the other drivers of Nazism: Nationalism, humiliation at Versailles, racial purity, Utopian ideals, Fascism, and the cult of personality of Hitler himself. Nazi Germany was not an atheist regime or an atheist country, and it was not motivated by atheism.
Even Russia under the Romanoff rule was a Christian nation by all accounts. It was not until the revolution in the early parts of the 20th century did atheism come into practice under Vladimir Lenin and subsequently Josef Stalin. Historically speaking both Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler were raised in a Catholic environment and attended schools for the Priesthood. It wasn’t until Stalin was introduced to Marxist propaganda was he kicked out of college for failing to take exams and pursued his political destiny.
Thus we can not say with certainty that Nazism (Fascism) and Communism are two sides of the same coin politically; nor were both atheistic regimes. We can say, however, that both men were lead by ambition and greatly influenced by another. For Hitler it was Martin Luther and for Stalin it was Karl Marx. We can also say that both were raised Catholic and professed Christians during their youth and subsequent years. However, professing to be a Christian is far different from being a true follower of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Had they indeed been true followers of the Messiah the outcome of the world might have been substantially different.
We can also say that throughout history no atheist has ever advocated for, nor promoted a revolution for the advancement of, an Atheistic Regime or it’s ascribed status.
Tom I thank you for taking the time in order to review my rebuttal and for the patience in doing so. For both are greatly appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and yours always.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
@altruistico
Oh my! I think I am in for some trouble.
Do I have the right of the matter? Maybe. I don’t actually think we are that far apart.
The 1930’s in Germany were not exactly pleasant. If FDR could use the Great Depression to consolidate power and Obama the Great Recession, one can only imagine what opportunities the economic and political chaos in Germany provided a rogue like Hitler.
Hitler wanted power. The German people wanted economic security and a restoration of their pride in their nation. Hitler offered both, but his demands for power were not compatible with the teachings of Christ. Since the Germans believed in Christianity, Hitler had to Nazify Christianity. That I think is essentially what you have observed.
Here is an article that says something similar.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/was-hitler-a-christian.html
Since Hitler largely succeeded in his efforts to Nazify what the Germans believed about Christianity, I think we can rightly regret the weakness of the opposition Christians offered Hitler. Nevertheless, that doesn’t make Hitler’s Nazified Christianity authentically Christian. What Hitler’s lies produced was a form of idol worship. Instead of worshiping the One True God, Hitler wanted Germans to worship the state with himself as the central feature of the state.
Atheism is the doctrine there is no God. In the extreme chaos that followed WWI, Russian communists succeeded in making Atheism the state religion. In the absence of God, the communists demanded that the people give their allegiance to the state or risk the gulag as an enemy of the people. The communists effectively deified Lenin and Stalin. Hitler did something similar. He gradually convinced the German people, under the threat of persecution to replace Jesus of Nazareth with himself, an Aryan Christ. Thus, Nazified Christianity replaced the One True God with a godless artifact of man, the almighty state.
Did the Nazis claim to worship the God of the Bible? I suppose so, but we would not have recognized that God, and younger Germans would not have recognized the God of the Bible.
What is scary about Germany and Russia is that we in America are going down the same path. You even put a name to it: Secular Humanism.
Consider a similar problem that is a bit closer to home. In the South, much of the Christian clergy justified slavery as Biblical. At the same time, the abolitionists opposed slavery because no Christian could own slaves without shaming himself before His Creator. We know what the Bible says, but we don’t always live up to what it says.
LikeLike
I agree, Tom, we are not that far apart. Yet, I do not contend you have the “high ground” and feel no impulse to capitulate and concede to you the victory (smiling). Although I do believe this round of debate will bring us within a hand shake and unification of our thoughts; though ever-so-slight variations of facts may yet prevail..
“The 1930’s in Germany were not exactly pleasant. If FDR could use the Great Depression to consolidate power and Obama the Great Recession, one can only imagine what opportunities the economic and political chaos in Germany provided a rogue like Hitler.”
The commonality between FDR and Hitler rests solely in the fact both were socialists. Under Adolf Hitler, the country operated as a totalitarian state ruled by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, or NSDAP. Here in the United States FDR introduced us to “The New Deal” and was a series of social liberal programs enacted in the United States between 1933 and 1938.
By the time FDR’s first term (1933-1937) was over American workers were still standing in soup lines and accepting day labor whenever they were able to find it. The Bear Market of 1929 never officially ended until 1949-1950 and a new Bull Market commenced. Though you are correct in saying FDR was able to consolidate power; the New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of nine Presidential terms from (1933 to 1969), with its base in liberal ideas, the South, traditional Democrats, big city machines, newly empowered labor unions and ethnic minorities [of whom still suffer].
Hitler’s Germany had already recovered and in 1936 Germany successfully hosted the Summer Olympics and showed off its success. The darker side of Hitler’s agenda, which focused on anti-Semitism, was downplayed when the country was in the public eye and many pieces of Nazi propaganda were removed during the Olympic Games. Though Nazi Germany is most commonly associated with the Holocaust, it also had many accomplishments. These achievements were what earned Hitler his immense popularity and allowed him to reign as long as he did. While it’s almost inconceivable for many to imagine following a government that lead to the genocide of six million people, seeing the bigger picture of Germany’s government can demystify much of what happened under Hitler’s rule and the Third Reich.
When Hitler became Chancellor, Germany was suffering from the Great Depression. Unemployment was high and the economy was very poor. Hitler established a mixed economy with heavy military spending. His works were able to put an end to much unemployment. The autobahns were constructed under the Third Reich and prosperity began to return to Germany.
Having said all of that I am lead to the place of our agreement and disagreement. That some how German Christians willfully accepted the “Nazified Christendom” of Adolph Hitler. I have always said there are two types of Christians. The “professing” [in name only] Christian and the “true believer.” There is little doubt Germany had many “professing Christians” and atheists with whom held no greater love for the Jewry than Hitler himself and his regime.
Under the Third Reich, loyalty to Germany was loyalty to Hitler and vice versa. Hitler’s relationship with Eva Braun was largely concealed so that he could be portrayed as a man who was married to his country. To question the word of the Fuhrer has serious consequences. Hitler’s power grew gradually, so that by the time German citizens may have begun to question him, they were in fear for their lives to voice these concerns. On that we both agree. Certainly some brave individuals defied Nazi rule and risked their lives to protect Jews and others who were targeted by the Nazis. To my mind comes Oskar Schindler and Anne Frank. However, the fear of death kept many others squarely in line under the Fuhrer’s rule.
Hitler and many of his SS troops had a good working relationship with the Vatican. Certainly Nazi Storm Troops did not cut all of the ties to Christendom by evidence of the Vatican issuing passports and safe passage to Brazil and Argentina after Germany’s surrender; that they might escape trial at Nuremburg.
Neither of us can say, with any degree of certainty, after the death of Hitler and under the leadership of his generals what Nazi Germany held for Christians had they won the war. Personally I can only surmise two things occurring: One: The Catholic Church and Catholicism would be the worlds dominate religion. and, two: That the continuation of the belief in a superior Aryan Race would lead to the genocide of Blacks, Asians, Hispanic and all non blue eyed, blonde haired people. I do not believe for a moment it would end with the genocide of the Jews.
I thank you, Tom, for your comments and our stimulating conversation. I have appreciation for both.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and yours always.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLiked by 1 person
@altruistico
To a large extent we are arguing semantics. You say the Nazis had “Christian” religion. I say that they were essentially atheists.
As you say, WWII terminated Nazism. We don’t know exactly where Hitler would have taken his religion.
Because the communists held power far longer, we do.
I would also observe that the communists persecuted the Jews and other minorities. However, their primary focus was class warfare, not race warfare. Thus, they were not especially choosy as to who the put in their gulags. Instead of gas chambers, the communists worked people to death. Instead of losing WWII, they “won”. So none of our people toured the gulags. Thus, even though the Russian Communists probably murdered many more people, the atrocities of the Nazis are far more infamous.
When the Communists took over Russia, they worked to destroy the Orthodox Church. Since that church had associated itself with the royals and the communists destroyed the royals using militarily force, they did not have much motivation to subvert the Orthodox Church, although that happened to a small extent.
Most of Germany was Protestant. The Catholics, because of the papacy, provides an inviting target, but Hitler took over all of Germany. Instead of an armed overthrow (what happened in Russia), Hitler got himself elected and slowly subverted that nation’s institutions, all of them.
Were the Germans more wrong to allow the rise of Hitler, or the Russians more wrong to allow the rise of Lenin and then Stalin? Does an armed overthrow somehow absolve Russian Christians of their sins? I don’t know. Like you, I just see what is happening here, and I think we need to consider our own sins.
FDR put Japanese Americans in camps. Was it right? In hindsight, most do not believe so. Was FDR on a track that would have taken us to totalitarianism? I think so. I think that we can go back to the founding of our nation and see we have been fighting the impulse that busybodies have to seize power. In recent times we have been losing that battle quite badly. God help us!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that she shouldn’t be the president, and I watched the video but I’m just a bit confused on when/where she said “Christians in America must deny their faith”. She did say “Religious beliefs need to be changed” but we need to remember that Christianity is not the only religion. She also never said “Need to deny their faith” although I could see how people are thinking that’s what she meant. I’m just saying she wasn’t really specific on what she said, and I don’t support her but it seems like people are putting words in her mouth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello, faith;
I hope you can forgive me for taking so long to respond.
I believe Hillary’s exact message was: “Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed;” from that message the producer [and hundred of others] got “Christians in America must deny their faith” and “Religious beliefs need to be changed.”
On the surface I do not believe Hillary Rodham Clinton, if elected, will impose laws of which prohibit Christian views against abortion or same sex marriages. It would be terrible if she did and would have destructive consequences for Christendom and our Nation. I do believe, however, that the fear is Hillary Rodham Clinton may be such an social extremist as to try imposing such mandates on the will of Catholics, American Jews and Christians.
Those of whom are devout Christians and Catholics have a deep seated belief concerning abortion and other social topics. For anyone saying to us “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed;” and, from this we hear “Christians in America must deny their faith.” Because for a Christian or Catholic to reject any aspect of our faith is to deny all of it.
Because of Donald J. Trumps platform I have to back him. Hillary is by any meaning of the word a socialist of which bring me back to an era of U. S. S. R. [Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]. I believe that is the agenda she brings to the United States: the New USSA [United States Soviet America. I hope I’m wrong and God prevails over our Great Nation.
I wish to thank you, faith, for your comments. They are always greatly appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you ever-so-much Godsman, for the like. It is greatly appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you and yours.
LikeLike