I found this graphic on an internet community for atheists and wow, did it ever get my brain in gear. I could see how people would spend a few seconds looking at it, nod their heads in agreement and go on with their lives.
For the most part, I also nod my head in agreement because, sadly, “religion” often has little to do with ethics (and that’s why I’m not into “religion”). But think about this: maniacal Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was a Christian? Really??
This continuing myth comes from two things:
1. Hitler’s parents were Roman Catholics and raised him in that Christian denomination.
2. Hitler’s 1926 autobiography, Mein Kampf. There are more than two dozen references to God in that twisted, difficult-to-read book – just use Google to find them, if you’re interested.
If you look up all those excerpts, you’ll notice only two mention Jesus Christ, who many people believe is the son of God.
But whether He was mentioned twice or 200 times, the fact is this: you don’t become a Jesus follower simply by writing about Jesus. Indeed, a Muslim recently published an entire book about Jesus.
People like me know that once we become followers of Jesus, we welcome Him into our lives to change us – always for the better (you can read just one example here: http://wp.me/p2wzRb-5g).
Does following Jesus mean we become perfect people? Well, you know the answer to that. But if I’m committed to following Jesus with all my heart and soul and spirit, then I will come closer to being like Him.
And in the meantime, by accepting the gift of Jesus, His followers know that the bad things they’ve done and the good things they’ve failed to do are wiped out by Jesus’s sacrificial death and resurrection.
Now consider this: in 1936, Hitler – by then Germany’s supreme leader and preparing his country to launch a horrific war – told his parliament “I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”
Statements like this have nothing to do with what Jesus is all about. Hitler apparently ignored the fact that Jesus was born a Jew, lived his life as a Jew, died as a Jew and came back to life as a Jew. There’s no avoiding it, unless you’re a deluded hate-monger like Hitler.
Indeed, it’s the contrast between Jesus and Hitler that should make it glowingly clear what it means to be a Jesus follower. So if you’ve ever heard someone declare that Christianity is bad because of lunatics like Hitler, please don’t let it keep you from doing the most important thing you could ever undertake: investigating for yourself what it means to be a Jesus follower.
Agree? Disagree? Post your thoughts below and let’s have a conversation.
While I wouldn’t argue Hitler’s Christianity or lack of, Chrisitanity was the driving force behind the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition. It has been the religious faith of murderers and adulterers and cheats. The point of the graphic is that being the faith of individuals who violate ethics and laws does not make the faith evil – it makes the individual evil.
A little aside point with respect to Hitler and the Christian label. If his basic faith was in the Bible, God, and Christ, he couldn’t be called an atheist or even agnostic. Giving and taking the Christian label based on his failure to live up to the tenets of his own faith doesn’t change what he believed or how he might have chosen to self-identify.
However, the point of the graphic isn’t to say Christians are bad because of Hitler (or any other bad leader who has worn the mantle of Christianity). The point is show that good and bad are not defined by a religious label. I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness and told repeatedly how much more honest we were (with much anecdotal proof) than other so-called Christians. That didn’t really make one group or another more honest. It was individuals’ actions. Being Christian or being a Jehovah’s Christian Witness didn’t automatically assign one of us higher ethics.
I agree with the basic concept. Anyone has the capacity to behave ethically, regardless of their faith and beliefs. My ethics are very clear, my values are strong, and I am a non-theist. I don’t have a higher power telling me what is right or wrong – I have a vision of what harms and what benefits and aim for greatest benefit to maximum number. I don’t need a promise of heaven or paradise or faith in a holy book or holy man to live according to those ethics and values. And there are many Christians, and many Muslims, and many Buddhists, and many atheists, and many you-name-it who do the same.
I laud those of any religious faith who combine that with ethical and value-driven behavior.
Thanks for reading and for your respectful comment, Ra5pu7in. I agree with most of what you’ve written, but I believe Hitler might have *claimed* to be Christian rather than actually following Jesus – a lifelong Jew.
I could walk around all day claiming to be Muslim – and maybe even writing it in a blog or on my Facebook page – but that wouldn’t mean a thing if I denigrated Mohammad, didn’t pray at prescribed times, never cracked open the Koran and never visited a Mosque.
I agree, Frank, that one can talk about Jesus all day long, but that doesn’t mean they are Christians in the sense of truly following Him.
And, if we DO follow Him as our Lord and Savior, we cannot help but strive to “do justice, to love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.” (Micah 6:8)
We need to be wary of those who espouse to love God, but act in ways which are contrary to Christian living.
Thanks for another thought-provoking post, my friend!
Blessings!
Happy to oblige, Martha. 🙂 In a much, MUCH smaller way, the life and supposed claims of Hitler are a good reminder to all of us who follow Jesus.
Christianity is in the eye of the believer, and as such is probably best kept in the heart of the believer–leaving only the acts thereof to speak to the practicality of a belief.
Whatever it takes for one to PRACTICE empathy and civility towards others and not just give these traits it lip service, so be it. Proof is irrelevant. Acts are everything.
I agree with most of what you’ve written, but I’m not so sure “Christianity is in the eye of the believer”. At a certain point, there simply must be a line drawn in the sand.
Acts aren’t quite everything, but they’re definitely of huge importance. I’ve heard it said that faith without action is like a screen door on a submarine.
Thanks, as always, for reading and commenting. I appreciate it. 🙂
Actually, I agree. Christianity IS what it IS, but people make it what they want it to be–is what I meant by “In the eye of the believer”–hence the many religious denominations.
Well said. One of the common arguments against God is the “problem of evil.” Here’s my take.
The issues Ra5pu7in brought up and the illustration of the graphic is that religion has nothing to do with ETHICS not morality. Without an objective source, God, all other routes lead to relativism.
Thanks for reading and for your thoughtful comment, Sam. I appreciate it. 🙂
I am SO TIRED of people claiming Hitler was a Christian simply because he said he was. That’s the most B.S. logic you can imagine. I liked your post, at least you brought some common sense into the topic.
I like to use the patriot analogy.
Suppose the hijackers of 911 claimed to be patriots; now a patriot is someone who defends and supports their country. Does claiming I’m a patriot make me one? Of course not, because my actions betray my professions.
Yet one man writes Jesus a couple times yet kills millions, and that makes him a Christian? Give me a break people.
God bless.
Thanks for reading and for your blunt, common-sense comment. I appreciate it. 🙂
This entire article is a perfect example of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. You repeatedly use the term “serious Christians” like it’s the one thing that separates you from others who share your religion. Never mind the fact that you live in a different time than Hitler (or the Spanish Inquisition, or the Crusades) and he doesn’t live up to YOUR definition of what a “serious Christian” is; Hitler simply couldn’t have been one, because that’s not what you believe!
Hitler was a Christian, period. Roman Catholicism is a sect of Christianity; they believe Jesus was the son of God the same as you do. He wiped out Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies because he was following the workings of his religious upbringing. When you state things like, “Statements like this have nothing to do with the Bible, which Christians like me believe is our guidebook to life,” you’re cherrypicking parts from the Bible to judge Hitler’s actions while ignoring other parts of the Bible where the bloodthirsty Jehovah told his followers to wipe out entire cities (1 Samuel 15:3), kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), and supposedly destroying all life on the planet because he didn’t like what people were doing.
Face it: the god of the Bible is worse than Hitler when it comes to evil acts. Jesus was God in human form, so he doesn’t get a pass here, either. Hitler was a Christian, whether or not you or anybody else want to argue otherwise, because there is more evidence for his following Christianity than there is for him following any other religion (or worldview). His evil deeds have everything to do with his religion, as they deal with the reasoning behind his decisions.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Derk. And thanks for cherrypicking the parts of the Bible YOU like to prop up your anti-Christian, anti-God position. I’m happy to disagree with pretty much everything you wrote. 🙂
I don’t need to cherrypick any parts of the bible, Frank. I can use any of those parts, and then either use another part to show inconsistency in its message, or disprove it using simple logic or scientific fact to disprove it.
But, hey, thanks for YOUR reply. It’s a shame you couldn’t make any refutations to what I said or try to give a good reason for what you wrote when I countered those arguments. If you’re going to write an opinion piece, be confronted with specific facts which contradict your opinions, and then not even address them in your own response, then what’s the point of replying in the first place?
As for the “No True Scotsman argument”, how about this: I’m an atheist. Oh, I’ll continue to follow Jesus Christ, worship God for giving me the gift of His Son and attend church regularly. But I’m an atheist. Because I say I am. See how ludicrous that is? My entire behaviour says I’m anything BUT an atheist – but you can’t argue against that because of the “No True Scotsman” argument.
“You repeatedly use the term “serious Christians” like it’s the one thing that separates you from others who share your religion. ”
1 John 4:20 If any man says I love God yet hates his brother, that man is a liar.
There is no religion to “share”. Either you follow Jesus or you do not. Say for the sake of this discussion I claimed to follow Martin Luther King Jr. Now MLK taught racial equality. Yet I exterminate millions of African Americans, am I a follower of MLK? Far from it.
So if Jesus says:
Non violence (Matt 26:52.)
Blessed are the merciful, meek and peacemakers (Matt 5:5-9.)
Forgive those who sin against you (Matt 18:21-22)
Love your enemies ( Luke 6:27-32 )
Love your neighbor (Luke 10:25-37 )
and a whole host of other moral commands, and I exterminate millions of Jews, you’re seriously going to say I’m a Christian because I said I was?
” Jehovah told his followers to wipe out entire cities”
The Amalekites were getting what they deserved for slaying the elderly and weak when they attacked the Israelites from behind (Deuteronomy 25:17-19)
“Face it: the god of the Bible is worse than Hitler when it comes to evil acts.”
I presume you’re an atheist? Tell me, by what standard do you judge God as “evil”.
What objective moral law do you hold God to and say He deviated?
There is no religion to “share”.
Give that a rest right now. You know what I meant when I stated that; it simply means that the beliefs you follow are the same as other people — in general. Obviously, nobody will ever have the EXACT same beliefs as another person, but the point was that two people who claim to be christians will share the same faith.
Either you follow Jesus or you do not.
Ah, another instance of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy! I love it when you theists like to show how limiting your logical capabilities are.
…and a whole host of other moral commands, and I exterminate millions of Jews, you’re seriously going to say I’m a Christian because I said I was?
Yes, I can, because you can do multitudes of other things that show/prove your claim that you’re a christian. If I said I was a mechanic and fixed every maker of automobile except Saabs because I didn’t believe in fixing them, would that NOT make me a mechanic?
The Amalekites were getting what they deserved for slaying the elderly and weak when they attacked the Israelites from behind (Deuteronomy 25:17-19)
That’s great! So killing IS okay (you know, regardless of what those pesky commandments say) as long as your god says to do it. Wow, what a hypocrite.
I presume you’re an atheist? Tell me, by what standard do you judge God as “evil”.
Probably the same standard as anybody would consider a person as “evil” when it comes to the mass murder of innocent people, the instructions to kill indiscriminately when told to do so, and the basic concept that if he arbitrarily decides something is wrong (homosexuality, anyone?) JUST BECAUSE he says it is — then yes, he’s evil for not respecting human life or the concept of free will (which he supposedly gave to humans).
What objective moral law do you hold God to and say He deviated?
I’m just going to use one example here, and it’s the sixth commandment — you know, about not killing? When he decides that he needs to wipe out all living things (except for the anointed few) during the great flood? Or when he tells people to wipe out other tribes? Or when he instructs Isaac to sacrifice his own son? Or when he condemns people to death for not following his plan (even though he knows in advance they won’t do it, because he’s omnipotent, right?)? Do I need to go on, or do you NOT see the hypocrisy in those examples?
Hello. As I stated when one’s actions betray their professions one cannot be taken seriously despite what they call themselves.
Thou shalt not kill.
Hypocrisy? No. The Hebrew word used here “ratsach” always denotes the taking of innocent life.
A quick reading of leviticus 18 reveals the heinous crimes the pagan nations the Israelites invaded were involved in. Including ignoring the 400 years they were given to repent.
As far as the flood goes, when violent tyrants rule the earth and angels are having sex with women creating mutated children trying to corrupt the line of the Messiah, and ignoring the 120 years Noah preached to them, I deem a flood acceptable.
Best regards.
Anthropomirphized apologist creature.
It can certainly be argued that Hitler represented himself as Christian even if he didn’t act Christian, but then I think most politicians represent themselves as all kinds of things they aren’t.
But if you are judging entities by their actions rather than accepting how they self-identify, then Jehovah certainly isn’t fair, just or moral. 😉
God not fair or just? You got that right, Grundy. He’s massively unfair, offering forgiveness to everyone who accepts the gift of Jesus, no matter what they’ve done (here’s just one example: http://wp.me/p2wzRb-6K). Jesus took onto his shoulders everything wrong I’ve done and everything right I’ve failed to do. Massively unfair. Massively unjust. And for that, I’ve forever grateful. 🙂
He’s massively unfair, offering forgiveness to everyone who accepts the gift of Jesus, no matter what they’ve done…
Then WHY did he supposedly give people free will? If he wanted people to do the right thing, then why didn’t he MAKE them do it? If he didn’t want them to follow it, then why bother punishing them?
This is the most idiotic response I’ve constantly read from theists who claim that their god gave people the chance to “do the right thing”. This god is inherently sadistic if he decides that punishing people for something different than what he could easily have arranged is so obvious that I just can’t comprehend how theists don’t see the same simple logic.
This god could make everyone believe, but he doesn’t. He then punishes people for not believing. Yet he knows they won’t believe because he’s supposedly omniscient and omnipotent, but still decides that he should punish them for not believing. So what it comes down to is this: the god KNOWS people won’t believe even though he supposedly has the power to do so, but decides to punish them for not believing.
Sounds like a grade-A prick to me.
God did not want a race of goose-stepping robots, Derk. If He did, that’s what He would have created. And Derk, you seem very bitter and angry. I kinda hope you get some help.
Another good post, though I must point out one (possible) conflict with the denial of Hitler’s religious beliefs. He did claim, several times, to be a Catholic Christian. Does that make him so (saved/redeemed)? Certainly not, and your comments on that distinction are well stated
However, this should give us pause, knowing the difference between definition per scripture and self-identification, when the media identifies a terrorist as “Muslim”.
Too often, Christians (rightly) reject correlations with violence or evil via an individual’s actions and yet (wrongly) use the same to falsely generalize, which I took as the point of the graphic.
Excellent points, Mike. Thanks for weighing in! 🙂
I’m not going to even get into the question as to whether he was a Christian or not. If Christians don’t want to claim him as one of their own, I think that there is enough evidence out there to make the case that he only used Christianity as a way of appealing to the masses.
Just so long as you don’t call him an atheist, I won’t call him a Christian.
I think we have an agreement, Lance. Thanks for reading and commenting. I appreciate it. 🙂
Wow, I finally got around to reading all the replies! I have a couple replies to the comments…
First, to derklempner, I love it when you atheists like to show how limiting your logical capabilities are, there’s a little tit-for-tat ad hominem for you there. (Yeah, I know that’s not very friendly, but let’s be honest, you claim to have logic on your side but you fail to see your own logical fallacy.)
Now, relating to your attack that this is a “no-true-Scotsman” fallacy. The issue is that you’re misunderstanding that fallacy. The way you’re using the fallacy, there can be no such thing as a definition. We (those that are taking the affirmative side of this argument) are attempting to show that Hitler doesn’t meet the basic definition of “Christian” as described in the Bible.
The fallacy you’re claiming is when you ADD to a definition some extra description that doesn’t apply. The traditional one is “all scotsmen are brave” and when objectors show a scotsman that is NOT brave, the retort is that he’s “no true scotsman.” It’s like moving the goalposts and changing the definition to suit the claim. This is NOT what’s going on here, we’re discussing what makes one a “true Christian” as opposed to someone who just CLAIMS to be a Christian.
To follow the analogy, we’re trying to judge to see if his birth certificate says “Christian” based on reviewing his works as compared to what the Bible describes as Christian. There’s a huge difference between trying to define terms and adding stipulations to define what we think is the ideal.
Secondly, as has already been shown, you have no leg to stand on in a moral argument if you claim that there’s no moral standard, which you MUST do if you deny the existence of a deity that sets a moral standard. I’ve seen many people try to do so, and claim the Euthypho problem in response to a God-centered moral foundation, but those objections are based on a weak, imperfect view of God.
Thirdly, I’m sorry, I honestly laughed out loud when I read your responses to the free will issue and how evil God is for having given mankind free will. If you REALLY think that mindless, choiceless, automaton, slavery is the same or better than the delicious freedom, I’ve got a deal for you. You should take some time to live as a slave. See how much you like it.
Also, I laughed at the irony of you exercising your God-given free will to defame the very God that gave you the freedom to do so. I also liked the clear ad hominem comment in that post as well, “idiotic response.” Really?
I was always taught that the easiest way to know who “won” the argument was to see who first throws the first insult (though this isn’t the first insult you’ve thrown in this discussion), because he/she that has run out of real things to say resorts to personal attacks.
As a general comment/question, there have been some responses that Hitler CLAIMED to be a Christian, did he REALLY? The original post only described that he talked about Jesus some 200 times. That’s NOT a claim to be a Christian.
I talk about atheism and atheists on my blog fairly regularly, but if anything I’m always in disagreement with them. Just because one says the word “toast” 150 times in their book about running. Doesn’t make that person a piece of bread (those are the most random examples I could come up with).
Wow, Sam, thanks for all the time and thought you put into this wonderful comment. Some excellent points here! 🙂
Yes, Sam, Hitler really did claim to be a Christian, and more exactly a Catholic. While I agree with your analysis of the “true Scotsman” argument, my point earlier is that Hitler was as Christian as Osama Bin Laden was Muslim.
Each believed themselves to be doing God’s work as a Christian/Muslim yet each were far from the teachings of the Bible/Qur’an. The acts of neither can be used to attack the faiths claimed.
Many Christians love to complain about the unfairness of doing so when others talk about Hitler (or even Luther – have you read “On the Jews and Their Lies”?) while at the same time engaging in twisted polemics by offering the actions of self-identified Muslims as “evidence” against an entire belief system.
No true scotsman, by definition. This fallacy is so lame.
“Serious Christians always change for the better”… well, maybe Hitler changed to being better at demagoguery?
Many prophets are credited with exceptional powers of charisma, and many prophets in the Old Testament have their fortune taken away at arbitrary times…
So, Frank, how can you know Hitler was not a Prophet of your god? Yahweh was all about granting success on the battlefield. And he was fickle as they come.
So who are you to say Yahweh didn’t grant Hitler his initial successes, and then withdrew His favor when Hitler failed to kill enough Jews and Commies?
He’s done crazier things, you know.
I’ve written it before and I’m happy to write it again, Andreas: faith is not a mathematical equation. It’s not a scientific principle. So the “No True Scotsman” fallacy doesn’t even begin to apply.
And how do I know Hitler was not a prophet of “my” (and your) God? Simple: investigate the life of Jesus Christ. Read His teachings. See His example.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Andreas. I appreciate it. 🙂
Oh puh-LEEZ!!
Why not be honest up front?
You start off by saying “I’m not into “religion”” … which later devolves to:
1. “Serious Christians like me”
2. “welcome Him into their lives to change them – always for the better”
3. “if I’m committed to following Jesus with all my heart and soul and spirit, then I will come closer to being like Him.”
4. “the bad things they’ve done and the good things they’ve failed to do are wiped out by Jesus’s sacrificial death and resurrection.” —> REALLY?? Have the Holocaust, the Gulag, the Rwandan genocide, etc. been conveniently WIPED OUT?? SERIOUSLY??!!??
5. “the Bible, which Christians like me believe is our guidebook to life”
6. “investigating for yourself what it means to be a Jesus follower”
7. etc., etc., etc.
So… why not just be honest & up-front… acknowledge a modicum of intelligence among your readers and treat them with a bit of respect… don’t begin with a denial that you’re INTO RELIGION, then slowly try to absorb readers into your “epiphany”.
“Religion” is about obeying unimportant rules and keeping up appearances in order to avoid disapproval from religous people. I’m not into that.
As for number 4, all the things you mentioned are large events involving thousands of people. The forgiveness I wrote about applies to individuals who accept the gift of Jesus. Not to large events. Kinda surprised you didn’t know that….
Frank, I actually quite like your original post even though I am not religious. Only you are missing the point, why atheists bring such things up: They are generally accused of missing ethics. One typical example is Hitler. The logical response is that Hitler was raised a Catholic and kept referring to God as you correctly described. He was clearly not atheist.
Your comparison to a guy writing a book ABOUT Jesus goes astray as it is clearly not the same as referring TO Jesus or thanking the good lord for his protection etc as can be read in “Mein Kampf”. the one thing is like writing a history book, the other thing is moving within a belief system.
be
Gunnar
You make some interesting points, Gunnar. I read the essay again and find I’m still satisfied with the context around Hitler and Christianity and a Muslim writing a book around the central figure of Christianity. That said, thanks for reading, commenting and keeping it mature and respectful. I appreciate it. 🙂
Haha, yes, Jesus was raised by his parents as a jew (if you tend to believe that he lived at all), but does that make him a jew? Even after his reapperance, while he is allknowing? I don’t remember any citation in the bible where Jesus claims himself to be a Jew.
You can argue that the bible is only a piece of religious propaganda and I wouldn’t dispute that, but then Jesus himself vanishes rapidly in myth and legend.
Second point: Some christians tell us, that to be a christian you primarly have to pray the lord. Others believe praying isn’t that important but how you behave against other people. So who is supposed to define what a real christian is? Where where the christians, which claimed that Hitler isn’t christian when Hitler was alive? Their political party made him the cancelor of the German Reich. Now, that nearly everybody agrees that he was an evil, satanic barbarian, suddenly he isn’t a christ any more. Not a real scotsman.
Third point, to the original text this time: “Religion does not always correlate with ethics.” That sentence doesn’t make sense this way. Correlation is a statistic term and already includes the idea “not always”. If you filter out unwanted data before the analysis, you find correlations for nearly every claim. No – “Religion does not correlate with ethics.” or “Religious people aren’t always those with impressing ethics.” Combinig both sentences makes the expression weak and senseless.
Correlation means, that if you know whether somebody is religious or not your bets on whether he is ethical or not improve with that knowledge. Not in every case you will be right with your guess but in more times than without any knowledge.
This might work even if we assume that most Christians are ethically or most Atheists not, a fair bet over the whole population assumed.
But maybe there was never a scientific study to prove the statement? Since ethic behaviour in contrast to ethic self confidence is hard to prove, I can imagine so.
My reading of the Bible – and I’ve read books that agree with it – is that Jesus was certainly Jewish. As for the no true scotsman argument, I’ve written it before and I’ll write it again: in my humble opinion, it doesn’t apply to faith. And if you want to argue over sentence structure, be my guest. But you’ll be arguing on your own.
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things & evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” — S. Weinberg
Thanks for the quote, John. Yes, “religion” is often an insult to human dignity. But a relationship with Jesus Christ is NOT. 🙂