Tag: religion

I’ve had numerous conversations with those opposed to Christianity who claim that the infamous German dictator of the 1940’s was Catholic, or at least that he was a Christian. Is this the case; and if not, why do so many make this claim?

When one considers there are no photos of the German leader taking communion, or standing in church with his hands raised, or praying, or recordings (written or audio) of him professing any kind of religion in his adult life, it is absurd to claim that he was a Christian. Even if one rejects books that document conversations in which he mocks Christianity, the burden of proof lies on the individual who claims that the dictator was a Christian.

What I find interesting is the flimsy evidence on which the claim is often based. The dictator had soldiers swear by God. Is this use of religious language the smoking gun? The German military uniform used the phrase “God with Us.” Would a non-Christian use such language?

Consider the phrase “God with Us” had been on Prussian uniforms since the 1700’s. It was not an invention of the German dictator. If one claims that use of religious language is proof of Christianity, then he or she uses a standard rejected by anti-theists when it is convenient. I have yet to meet an anti-theist who doesn’t say it is of no consequence that the U.S. Constitution is signed, “In the Year of Our Lord.” They say use of this phrase, and religious language on other documents, is an example of the religious phrases customary to that time period. They say it is not an indication that the men who signed the constitution were Christians.

Any anti-theist who changes his or her standard in this way demonstrates Special Pleading, a logical fallacy. In special pleading, an individual deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view. They apply standards, principles, or rules to other people or circumstances, while making his or her own circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria. One cannot argue that use of religious language proves Christian intent only when it benefits a specific argument.

The attempt to connect the man responsible for killing six million Jewish people with Christians appears to be motivated by something akin to an ad-hominem attack on all who have faith; they are saying don’t trust them, they are just like the 1940’s dictator.

Why do you think some are so motivated in their effort to get you, and others, to avoid considering God’s word, even if it means misrepresenting His message? What are your thoughts?

Famed atheist writer Richard Dawkins told New Scientist, “I want to encourage people to think for themselves.” It’s something with which most Christians would agree.  It is also something many atheists claim is their goal as well. But Dawkins went on to say, “I’ve always felt rather passionate about breaking the cycle as each generation passes on its superstitions to the next. If you ask people why they believe in the particular religion that they do, it’s almost always because that’s how they were brought up.”  His words have a grain of truth mixed with myth.

It is unfortunate that some, as Dawkins pointed out, have a cultural religion rather than a relationship with God. The Bible even warns of those who make God’s word of no effect and only follow tradition. But let’s talk about some of his presuppositions. Firstly, I disagree that most Christians have a relationship with Jesus simply because it was the way they were brought up, and he didn’t give any proof of this claim. It’s also clear that Dawkins uses the word ‘superstition’ to describe anyone’s faith in God. That may be his faith, but he has never proven God to be a myth.  And lastly, he implies that Christians don’t think for themselves; something echoed by so many who look to his books and lectures for justification of their hatred of God. But does the Bible tell Christians to leave the thinking to someone else?

Isiah says, “let us reason together;” Matthew warns us of religious leaders who mislead people; and the Bible makes it clear we are not to let scribes and Pharisees do our thinking.

Faith is not the result of letting someone else do our thinking.  Ephesians says saving faith is a gift from God, and it cannot come from from any other person.

God’s gift is free to all who will ask.  Will you accept His offer?

I read a post from a non-believer who said one of the most pernicious myths among evangelicals is that atheists need something bad to happen to them to “strong-arm them into believing in nonsense for no good reason.”  Those are his words, not mine.

This claim reveals more about myths among anti-theists than it does about Christian belief.  I’ve never heard a preacher say that no one is saved until God “strong-arms” them. While it’s true that some turn to God when tragedy diminishes the distractions once considered important, a bad experience is hardly a requirement.   Anyone who says otherwise presupposes that Christians turn to our Savior only to be saved from some immediate problem.

The book of Ephesians tells us, “…it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”  If we are saved by faith, and our faith is a gift from God (given to those who seek Him,) then there is no “strong-arm,” just God calling us to accept a gift.

At the end of the day, there’s no strong-arm; just God offering salvation through the sacrifice His son made on the cross.

Will you accept His gift?