|
|
|
Towards evil
Nazism did not
suddenly arise out of nowhere, but development moved in the same direction for
more than a century.
The same
development is possible today When it comes to evil in society, it is, according to the Bible, a problem for all mankind. The world lies in wickedness (1 John 5:19), and there is no one who is completely sinless. All have sinned and are incomplete, as it is written:
Even a Christian who seriously wants to do God's will and do the right thing is not completely free from sin. It is an unfortunate fact in this lifetime. Evil hangs in us to some extent, and we cannot be completely separated from it. Paul brought out this struggle between good and evil very well, and stated that he had the will to do the right thing, but he did not always succeed in doing it:
The purpose of this article is to examine evil in society. One of the lessons of history is that we learn nothing from history. This is possible even in modern times. The mistake is especially in the fact that the people of today consider themselves to be somehow different from the people of history. We think that humanity is developing all the time, and that nowadays we are wiser and better than in the past. How do you know this is a lie? You only need to look at a little history. In the 19th century, there was a similar development optimism in Europe as it is today. Humanity was thought to be going in a better direction, but what came of it? The biggest wars and violence in history. Tens of millions lost their lives either in wars or persecution by the leaders. Well-known are e.g. The regimes of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot and numerous communist states where atheism has been the official doctrine. The worst causes of destruction have been communism, based on atheism, and Nazi ideology. If they had not come to power and influenced people's minds, the development of many societies would have been different and more peaceful. These societies would have avoided many of the sufferings these ideologies led to. Thus, a development leading to evil is possible even today, especially because the generation that experienced the Second World War is gradually leaving our midst. It only takes a few decades. So what happens when a generation takes over that no longer remembers the lessons of the past? It is very possible that we will witness events similar to what happened in the 20th century. In order to learn from the mistakes of the past, it is worth studying a little history. One good starting point is the development in Germany before Nazism got the better of other social views. What makes the development in Germany significant is that it was considered one of the most civilized countries in Europe. There was published e.g. more new works than in France, England and the United States. However, it did not prevent Germany from drifting into chaos and violence. But why did an ideology like Nazism prevail in perhaps the most civilized country in Europe, Germany? The reasons can of course be the instability of the economy and society as well as other social explanations, but there are also deeper reasons behind them. Especially the abandonment of Christianity, liberal theology and the influence of the theory of evolution are important background factors. That's why we look at the development starting from the 18th and 19th centuries. It is essential because no ideologies are suddenly born out of nowhere, but usually have a longer development behind them. We look at the currents that occurred in Germany. The development of this country involves e.g. the following points:
Liberal theology and Bible criticism in Germany. One of the main reasons why an ideology like Nazism was able to win in Germany was the currents that appeared in the universities, one of which was liberal theology and Bible criticism. Germany was a leading country in religious criticism, and there appeared a number of well-known theologians who questioned the fundamentals of the Christian faith. They denied supernatural phenomena, the historical accuracy of the Bible, and attacked the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. They were offended by the fact that Christianity was considered the heir of Judaism. That's why they try to tie it to westernism and a certain race of people. They spoke of the Aryan religion. The development of the time 30-50 years before the Nazis is very clear from a few quotes. The first of them is a statement by the anthropologist Max Müller from 1878, the second is from a book from 1891, and the third is related to Karl Marx, who stated that the criticism of religion has been completed in Germany. The quotations show how the wave of abandoning Christianity started in Germany already in the 19th century.
Secondly, the attacks were merely cursory and dispersed during the old times; now they are regularly organized. The French spirit is roaring and fierce, but not as dangerous as the German... A far worse disturbance than those French babblers has been caused in the circles of believers by David Strauss and his fellow spirits. Ever since the French spirit made its groping attacks against Christianity in the time of Voltaire, the rejection of Christianity has gone through the philosophical school of the German spirit and developed into a whole system of worldview, which has actually tried to place itself instead of Christianity. (Dr. Chr. Ernst Luthardt in his book in 1891) (2)
"In Germany, criticism of religion has essentially been completed, and criticism of religion is a prerequisite for all criticism." (Karl Marx in the introduction to "Hegel's Critique of Legal Philosophy")
When there were several opponents of the Christian faith or Bible critics in Germany, the following is a list of some of the most important names. They greatly contributed to the fact that the Christian faith in Germany lost its importance.
Johann Semler (1725-1791), Johann G. Fichte (1762-1814) and Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) were theologians who sought to separate the Christian faith from its Jewish roots and bind it to Westernism. Friedrich Schleiermacher has been considered the father of liberal theological thought.
In the late 1870s, Julius Wellhausen presented his famous theory about the origin of the books of Moses. He concluded that they could not have been written by Moses, and that the Old Testament was in no sense the word of God. Herman Günkel (1862-1932) agreed with Wellhausen's views and considered the patriarch stories to be myths.
David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874) was one of the most famous liberal theologians of the 19th century. He rejected the supernatural narratives of the Bible and considered them ahistorical.
Bruno Bauer (1809-1882) was one of the leading liberal theologians. He denied several basic things of the Christian faith, and the book he wrote destroyed e.g. the belief of Friedrich Engels (the second founder of communism along with Marx).
When there were several well-known figures in Germany who had a negative attitude towards the Christian faith or other religions, Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Ludwig Feuerbach were among them. Their influence is evident in Georg Jung's letter, which also mentions the name of Bruno Bauer, who appeared above:
"If Marx, Bruno Bauer and Feuerbach together start a religio-political critique, God had better surround himself with all his angels and surrender to the power of self-pity, because these three will surely drive him out of heaven. (D. McLellan: Marx before Marxism, McMillan)
A. Drews was one of the liberal professors of the early 20th century. He wrote the book The Christ Myth, in which he argued that it is a mistake to consider the historical Jesus as the starting point of the Christian church.
Friedrich Delitzsch, who was influential in the early 20th century, did not believe in the revelatory nature of the Old Testament. He wanted to replace it with Germanic heroic tales.
Rudolf Bultmann was one of the most famous liberal theologians of the 20th century in Germany. His influence has extended to our time. He thought miracles and anything supernatural were impossible. In addition, he stated in an article published in 1933 that "the Old Testament as such is not the word of God to us, and the history of Israel in general is not a revelation to us."
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) is known as a psychologist, but he was also an atheist and considered belief in God to be an illusion created by wishful thinking. He influenced a change in the world view in Germany, just as Darwin had done a few decades earlier.
When looking for a reason for the rise of ideologies such as Nazism and Communism, only economic and social instability reasons may be presented. These are of course important factors, but they are not the only explanation, as the previous quotes showed. It was characteristic of the time before and during Nazism that the Christian faith lost its importance, but the atheistic worldview and morality gained ground in people's minds (Atheism and rejection of the Christian faith was also characteristic of communism). In addition, huge numbers of people left the church, as a quote from a book published in 1934 shows.
From time to time, there have been mass movements of abandoning the church in several countries after the war. Thus, in Germany in 1920, 305,000 people left the evangelical churches. This escape from the church has continued. In 1930, in Berlin alone, 59,225 persons renounced the Lutheran Church, not to mention those Catholics and Jews who abandoned the faith of their fathers... We need not say much about the spread of blasphemous ideas in the 20th century. Suffice it to say that the number of those who publicly confess or tacitly accept the absolute non-existence of God has increased immeasurably. Some men who are considered scholars claim that modern science makes belief in God impossible. They either completely stop believing in God or present that "science requires a new understanding of God". This denial of God begins among children at school. In some cities, thousands of 6-14 year old children, starting from elementary school, have walked the streets carrying the following posters: "“God out of schools”, “Take down God-superstitions”, " Religion is an anesthetic” etc. (3)
In Germany, therefore, happened apostasy from the Christian faith long before the Nazis. One example of the development of time is Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), who was one of Germany's most famous philosophers at the end of the 19th century. He was a graduate student in theology, but dropped out after reading Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. He was a fierce opponent of Christianity and proclaimed the death of the theistic God. He declared that there is no right and wrong and that nothing has a purpose. He is also known for his anti-Semitism and superhuman thinking. However, he himself suffered from an incurable mental illness for the last ten years of his life. Nietzsche's importance lies in the fact that he was Hitler's favorite philosopher. Hitler was a great admirer of this philosopher and distributed Nietzsche's books to his men. In addition, Hitler often visited the Nietzsche Museum in Weimar and allowed himself to be photographed when he was staring and admiring at the image of this philosopher. A good picture of Nietzsche's meaning is given by the following statement. It is from a book published in 1934, just five years before World War II. The author mentioned how Nietzsche's ideas were seen to have a great influence on the outbreak of the war:
But these men not only deny God theoretically, but they consider faith in God to be pernicious to human happiness, and they have set about thoroughly destroying the godly consciousness of the human soul. Nietzsche, a great German philosopher who, in the opinion of many, has done more than anyone else to ignite war, said: "Ideas such as mercy, pity, and mercy are pernicious, for they signify the transfer of power from strong to weak, whose proper mission is to serve the powerful. Remember that self-sacrifice, fraternity, and love are not chastity instincts in the first place, but merely caused conscientious problems designed to prevent you from being yourself. Remember that man is essentially selfish." (4)
In Germany, therefore, there was apostasy from the Christian faith long before the Nazis. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that Nazi ideology, which rejected the basics of the Christian faith and the principles of the Ten Commandments (Do not kill, do not steal, do not say false testimony of your neighbor…) suddenly arose from nothing and emerged like lightning from a clear sky. This almost never happens, but ideas must have a broad base of support before they can become politically possible. We take quotations from Olavi Paavolainen's book Risti ja Hakaristi (1938), which was published just before the Second World War. It describes the 1930s and how the struggle against Christianity was characteristic of the Nazis, as it was of the Communists. Developments in this direction had taken place for decades:
Something incomprehensible, about the demon, is happening in the soul of the German people. Already during World War I, some English propagandists argued that Germany has never really converted to Christianity, but has always been pagan and “Germanic” under a weak Christian shell. The phenomena occurring during National Socialism seem to support this claim in an astonishing way. … The struggle against Christianity in the Third Reich has reached such a scale and so many forms that it is practically impossible to describe it in the context of a single writing. … The harsh censorship of the state had made it almost impossible for the inhabitants of the Third Reich to follow the church battle, and during this obligatory ignorance and the dispersal within the church, fierce anti-Christian propaganda has reached great proportions. The entire anti-Christian literature, from magnificent works of glory to numerous magazines and hundreds of thousands flyers, had seen the light of day. The great man of World War I, General Ludendorff, and his wife had declared that they would dedicate the rest of their lives to the eradication of Christianity from Germany. … And commonly known are the verses of a Hitler-Jugend song: Wir sind die Fröhliche Hitler-Jugend, wir brauchen keine christliche Tugend - we are a happy Hitler-Jugend youth, we do not need any Christian virtues. (5)
Theory of evolution. It was stated above how liberal theology and atheism was in power in Germany decades before the rise of the Nazis. It was a question of more than a century of development, so it was a long process. What about the influence of Darwin and his theory of evolution? This theory was already accepted in the 19th century and it had a profound effect on European societies. Darwin's theory revolutionized philosophy, psychology, biology and politics. It changed people's world view and influenced even Hitler's thinking. Hitler believed in evolution and his attitude towards Jews and other ethnic groups can be at least partially attributed to this belief. P. Hoffman wrote in his book Hitler's Personal Security on this topic: "Hitler believed in a struggle in human life according to Darwinian principles, which forces all people to try to dominate each other. Without a fight they would degenerate and be destroyed... Even in the face of his own defeat in April, Hitler expressed his belief in the survival of the fittest and declared that the Slavic people had proven themselves to be stronger.” (6) Darwin's theory therefore changed people's world view. It gave a seemingly scientific basis for atheism and the rejection of God, but also for the rejection of morality. Morality no longer had a permanent foundation because it was not connected to God. As for the human rights violations and injustices discussed in this article, the theory of evolution itself did not lead to these acts. Instead, this theory affected people's world view so that they began to question the sanctity and value of human life. It involves e.g. the following factors:
The border between humans and animals became blurred. When it comes to the theory of evolution, it is based on the assumption that all living species today have been inherited from a single primordial cell. This theory is believed even though the origin of life has not been proven and even though there are no known examples of real species changes. There are no examples of changes in species in Darwin's book On the Origin of Species, nor in other evolutionary literature. Even bacteria have not been observed to transform into other species of bacteria, let alone other species. Alan Linton, Professor of Bacteriology at the University of Bristol, has written on the subject:
Throughout the 150-year history of bacteriological research, there is no evidence that the bacterial species has changed to another. (7)
How, then, did Darwin's theory – even though no concrete evidence is found for it – affect the perception of man? In short, it devalued the human being. Human life was no longer considered qualitatively different compared to the rest of creation. There was seen to be only a slight degree of difference between humans and animals, as humans were thought to have evolved from simple organisms through gradual changes. As a result, it was difficult to draw a line between humans and other natural creatures. Man himself was seen to be subject to constant change, like the rest of nature. During the last hundred years, when inhumanities have occurred, they have been based on a distorted image of man:
If it is difficult for you to believe that evolution is connected to the issues mentioned above, you will see the connection clearly after studying a couple of historical examples. In fact, I have yet to meet a single well-educated evolutionist who disagrees with me about the connection of these moral issues and evolution. They are not necessarily of the opinion that this is what should have happened but they do agree that people have applied evolution in this way. It is important for you not to misunderstand what I’m about to say. Of course, there were bad philosophies that go against God already before Darwinist evolution. People did abortions long before Darwin announced his popular view on evolution. However, people’s beliefs about their origins influence the way they view the world. When people reject God -- the Creator -- their attitude towards themselves, other people and our world changes. (8)
Racial science and scientific racism. Second, when Darwin's theory became accepted and man was assumed to have descended from lower animals, it also led to the notion of the inherent superiority of certain races. It began to be thought that some breeds are innately more capable, intelligent and better adapted. People were classified as valuable and less valuable based on race, ability, or other characteristic. This view, called Social Darwinism, was common in the early 20th century. It was adopted in many countries. Evolutionary theory thus provided a quasi-scientific justification for racism and human inequality. It was no longer believed that the entire human race originated from a single couple and that all human races have the same short life cycle. This notion was rejected because of Darwin's theory. A good picture of how the view called social Darwinism, scientific racism, was common in Europe, but especially in Germany, is given by Richard Weikart. In his book From Darwin to Hitler, he wrote that by 1890 "almost all influential Darwinian anthropologists and ethnologists—as well as most Darwinian biologists and popularizers—embraced scientific racism." (9) Historian H.G. Wells continues on the same topic. He wrote in 1924 how Social Darwinist thinking and the rejection of belief in God and morality came to power after 1859, when Darwin had published his book On the Origin of Species. The quote shows how much Darwin's works influenced people's world view and behavior. It doesn't matter what we believe about our origins:
Darwinism was a sudden surprise to official Christianity… The immediate impact of this great controversy… was quite damaging. The new biological science had not yet produced anything constructive that could have replaced the old laws of chastity. The result was a real loss of morality… Since 1859, there has been a real decline in faith. In many cases, the real gold of religion was thrown away with the worn purse where it had been stored for so long and could not be recovered. At the end of the nineteenth century, influential and mighty individuals believed their power was based on the ‘struggle for existence’, in which the strong and cunning overcome the weak and the confident. (10)
From De Beer’s work, Charles Darwin can also be seen how Darwin’s teachings were popular in Germany. They were applied to society and politics. Darwin himself found such thoughts silly. However, the theory he put forward contributed to the spread of social Darwinism in society:
Darwin's lack of historical consciousness undoubtedly led him to write his astonishingly naive letter to Baron von Scherzer: 'How foolish the notion of socialism and natural evolution there is in Germany.' It happened 26 december in 1879, and a year later he must have received a shock when he received a letter from Karl Marx asking him for permission to own an English edition of his book Das Kapital (Capital) for him. (11)
A couple of comments further show how Darwin's theory led to Social Darwinism in the society of its time. It led to a view in which the sanctity of human life was questioned. That would not have had to happen, but since the theory of evolution does not provide any moral foundations, it was one possible development:
It is clear that the path from Darwinism, Wagnerism, Nietzscheanism and even racism and anti-Semitism to Nazism was never simple and straight. Of course, different roads led in different directions. however, for all its tortuousness, one road actually led to Auschwitz. However great the dangers of goal-directed thinking, these dangers should not weaken our resolve to understand the processes and influences that in at least one case led to that goal. I believe that the fear of complexity is a bad reason to abandon the study of cultural history. (12)
Although we should be careful about depicting Darwin as the man, who is responsible for the beginning of a secular period, we should be equally careful not to underestimate the importance of evolutionary thought in questioning the sanctity of human life. (13)
The development in Germany was influenced by several people, but the most important name in the field of evolutionary theory was Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), who has become famous for his Social Darwinism and his fake fetal pictures (He later had to admit his fraud). He was the "apostle of Darwinism" in Germany and enjoyed immense popularity among his contemporaries. His popularity and influence as a promoter of the theory of evolution in Germany and throughout Europe is illustrated by the fact that although Darwin's book On the Origin of Species laid the foundation for the theory of evolution, it was only distributed in small editions and in a few languages. Instead, Haeckel's works were distributed in hundreds of thousands and in more than 30 languages. His main work The Riddle of the Universe (Welträtsel) sold more than 100,000 copies in the year of publication in Germany alone. The spread of Haeckel's works is also illustrated by the fact that his main work Welträtsel (1899) was translated into Finnish earlier than Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published 40 years earlier. In addition, Darwin himself gave great value to Haeckel. In the introduction to his book The Descent of Man (1871), he praised Haeckel's work on the same subject as more profound and better than his own book. The Englishman Thomas H. Huxley also considered Haeckel to be a more prominent popularizer of the theory of evolution than himself. One of Haeckel's achievements was the materialistic monism movement, which had thousands of members in German and Austrian cities. Haeckel organized this movement, in which it was sworn that there is no God and spirit, only matter. Significantly, the movement of monists spread precisely to the same territories as the Nazi National Socialist Party later. The remarkable influence of Haeckel in Europe at the time has been well described by the physiologist Max Verworn in 1921:
It is possible to argue without exaggeration that no scientist has had a greater impact on the development of the worldview of our time than Haeckel. (14)
The Finnish J.E. Aro has also described how Haeckel's teachings spread in Europe. He wrote in his book Kehitysoppi nykyisellä kannallaan (1907):
But the more ardent fighters than Darwin himself were his supporters, especially the just mentioned Huxley from England and Ernst Haeckel from Germany. The latter in particular has caused "Darwinism" to spread so rapidly on the European continent, although on the other hand, through his exaggeration, the struggle has also become more intense than usual and has often moved beyond the main issue itself. Undoubtedly, it is through Haeckel that Darwinism has become known to us in wider circles.
Haeckel’s influence has been described also by Pascual Jordan. His mention appeared in Haeckel's most important work, Welträtsel:
For the most part, thanks to this book, European unreligiousness has become one of the greatest spiritual forces of the 20th century.
From the previous one, it can therefore be concluded how far-reaching influence Haeckel had in Europe, especially in Germany and Austria. He was the apostle of evolutionism and irreligion, whose teachings influenced millions. Under his influence, the Christian faith lost its importance and atheism won the field. However, Haeckel's influence was also devastating in another way. He was one of the leading opinion influencers who proposed a solution to the Jewish question. He was strongly anti-Semitic like some of the liberal theologians mentioned above. He contributed to the fact that Jews began to be hated. Pauli Ojala has written on the subject:
Haeckel was, I think, the first to present a program for solving the Judenfrage. He did not yet mean elimination, but the expulsion of Jews from university chairs. For him, Judeo-Christian altruism, the protection of the weak, was a decadent anti-nature. Russian pogroms did not yet have a biological nuance, while Haeckel launched the idea of the weed of humanity. He accused the Jews who wrote the NT of poisoning the entire West with transcendental dualism and flagged "monistic" atheism. Haeckel's followers Jules Soiree and George Vacher de Lapouge (1854-1936) already demanded the direct elimination of Jews, out of academic envy before the idealization of Aryanism. Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945) was a plagiarist by history and mentality, and his own slogan "Politics is applied biology" was originally presented specifically by Haeckel. (15)
Haeckel's destructive influence was also manifested in the fact that he was one of the first to actively promote euthanasia in Germany. He was a scientist but he represented a similar model that the Nazis later implemented. He suggested killing the sick and the weak, citing mercifulness just like the Nazis later. He also used the economic argument that the Nazis also used. When you understand that Haeckel was a significant influence on the public, who was listened to and whose works were read, it certainly influenced the Nazi world view and thinking. In retrospect, one can speculate whether the Nazis would have left their euthanasia program unimplemented if it had not been for Haeckel's books. The following quotes are from his works:
We must classify as tradition and dogma the widespread belief that life should be maintained and prolonged under all circumstances even if it has become completely useless - a source of pain to the incurable and an endless annoyance to their friends. Hundreds of thousands of incurables - moon lunatics, lepers, cancer patients, etc. are kept artificially alive in our modern societies and their sufferings are carefully prolonged, without the slightest benefit to them or to the community. What an enormous amount of suffering behind these numbers for the invalids themselves, what an amount of trouble and grief for their families - and what public costs! How much of this pain and cost would be saved if people dared to decide and free the incurables from their indescribable suffering through a morphine overdose!" (16)
Among the Spartans, all newborn children were subjected to a careful examination and selection procedure. All the weak, sickly or deformed were killed. Only perfect, healthy and strong children were left alive and only these continued the race." [Haeckel 1883] Cf. Hitler's line: "Sparta must be considered the first National Socialist state. Exposing sick, weak and deformed children to destruction was more decent, more truthful and a thousand times more humane than the whiny madness with which our modern age preserves even the most pathological object." (17)
Euthanasia program. If you have to name things that the Nazis are known for, one of them was certainly the so-called a euthanasia program that eventually led to vast extermination camps. This program began on Hitler's order and was carried out by a committee of doctors. It was headed by Dr. Karl Brandt in addition to a few other experts. Propaganda was also carried out in favor of the euthanasia program. It prepared people to accept euthanasia. Newspapers and schools showed calculations of what the chronically ill and disabled cost society. Similarly, in schools, children were shown a film in which a doctor entered a sick room and gave a fatal thorn to an elderly person. The doctor then closed the old man's eyes, turned off the lights, and left the room, calmly explaining, "That was the right solution—it was the only solution." The Nazis thought that the right to life had to be earned. If a person was not healthy, he was in the danger zone. The circle of people to be killed was also being expanded all the time. At first, the euthanasia program only concerned the chronically ill and the disabled, but gradually the socially unproductive, dissidents and representatives of the wrong race were included. This expansion of the circle of those who can be killed is easy to understand. Once the idea of the sanctity of human life had been abandoned, it was easy to go further and further in the same direction. However, the Nazi euthanasia program did not start from scratch. The seeds for development had already been sown decades before. As stated, it was already brought up by Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) years before the Nazis, before the existence of the Nazi movement. He wrote about the justification of euthanasia in his widely distributed books. The same idea was familiar elsewhere in university and intellectual circles. It all started with a conversation about the fact that some people's lives are not worth living. It was a small spark that started in the attitude towards the terminally ill. It was explained that it is more merciful to end the lives of those suffering and that it is also beneficial to society financially. In modern times, we can hear exactly the same arguments, so we repeat the same discussion that took place then. The following quote tells more about the subject. This comment is from the American psychiatrist Leo Alexander. He participated in the Nuremberg War Trials and in 1949 wrote an influential treatise called Medicine under Dictatorship. It was published in The New England Journal of medicine. Alexander stated that the change happened little by little and initially got its strength from how to relate to the terminally ill:
It all started with doctors accepting the basic idea of the euthanasia movement that some people's lives are not worth living. In the beginning, in this way, the seriously and chronically ill were treated. Gradually, socially unproductive, ideologically and racially undesirable people began to be included -- But it is important to realise that the extremely small stimulus from which this line of thought drew its strength was the attitude towards terminally ill people.
The second comment also suggests how euthanasia thinking was common even before the Nazis. The Nazis did not invent this thinking but it had been talked over before them in universities and intellectual circles:
Genocide of people in Germany did not begin from Nazis and Hitler. Already in the 1920’s psychiatrist Alfred Hoche and jurist Karl Binding wrote a book about finishing unviable life. It told about valueless people, and about life that is not worth living; and that the ending of life should be entitled by legislation. It was also discussed much about economical costs caused by taking care of patients like these. Both writers were leading intellectuals. A certain kind of spirit of the times was born (Fredrik Wertham ym. Inte bara Hitler, Provita Uppsala, p. 47) One of the authors of the book Inte bara Hitler, the historian of ideas Per Landgren, draws the following conclusion: "The fact that Hoche and Binding were eminent academics is also a clear example of the fact that ideas were in no way a temporary blinding of the German people. Nazism did not change science and medicine. Western science and medicine had already been corrupted and gave an inspiration for Nazism.” (p. 97) Apparently, the emergence of such a zeitgeist was influenced by many factors such as Social Darwinism, liberal theology, and the rejection of biblical authority and secularization in general. Already from the 1700s, philosophers had laid the foundation for such a collapse of human dignity. There had been a change in the image of God and the image of man. There was no longer an absolute value to human life, based on the fact that God created man in His own image. (18)
Antisemitism. Three things the Nazis are particularly known for are starting World War II, the euthanasia program, and intense anti-Semitism, which ultimately led to the murder of millions of Jews. The Nazis killed other groups of people as well, such as dissidents, Poles, Russians, Roma - relatively more Roma were killed than Jews - but most of their killings were directed at Jews. When the Nazis came to power, they by no means immediately started mass murders, but their first measure was strong anti-Jewish propaganda, which appeared e.g. In Der Stürmer magazine. It manifested itself in derogatory names - cancerous tumor, parasitic plant, bloodsucker, fungus... - and made even ordinary Germans negative towards Jews. Jews were increasingly dehumanized in the German world of thought. The following quote from the book Gestapo (Frank McDonough: The Gestapo - The Myth and Reality of Hitler's Secret Police) tells more about the subject:
Years of malicious propaganda demonizing the Jews by portraying them as physically repulsive, hook-beaked devils had affected even previously tolerant people. Posters, films and newspapers were full of such anti-Jewish imagery every day. Max Rainer recalled: "I could no longer hold a German newspaper. Jews this, Jews that. It was as if there were no other topics left. The papers competed with each other with their insults, threats, ridiculousness."
Hans Fritzsche, who at one time held a high position in the propaganda ministry led by Josef Goebbels and head of the radio department since 1942, has taken a stand on the same topic, i.e. negative propaganda. He was interviewed during the interval of the Nuremberg trials in 1946 by Leon Goldensohn. In the interview, Fritzsche admitted that the crime always starts with negative propaganda, not just when people are murdered. This is a good reminder of past decades. Negative propaganda is the first step to evil.
...I feel that there is a religious demand - You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ - this principle has not been implemented for two thousand years. I would like even one spark of life to emerge in the darkness of this tragedy. I mean understanding that a crime doesn't happen until a person is murdered. The crime starts with propaganda, even if it is for a good cause. The moment the propaganda turns towards another state or person, evil begins. (20)
Another comment points in the same direction. Ronald Boyd-MacMillan was at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp looking at the camp and its incinerators when he was approached by a rabbi with a series of numbers tattooed on his arm. The rabbi had told him, pointing to ovens, how meaningful the words were. It all started with slander, lies and slogans:
You have to understand this: these crematoria were not originally built of bricks, but of words! It all started with lies that were initially set in motion as jokes, slogans and arguments, so soon we Jews became impersonal, stripped of humanity, beings comparable to animals, and anything can be done to animals! We didn't realize what was coming until it was too late. (21)
However, eight years passed from the moment Hitler came to power before the actual mass murders began in the summer of 1941. What happened during this time? Some experts are of the opinion that the destructive development could have been stopped at the earliest stage - when the development was still at the level of speech. The trend, however, was that the rights of the Jews were narrowed all the time. From the level of mockery, they went further and further in removing rights. Susanna Kokkonen has described the development. What is special is that when the development started with anti-Jewish propaganda and a boycott targeting the movements, a similar development can be observed today. Many politicians called for a boycott of Jewish products. History repeats itself again and we do not learn from previous events.
What can we conclude based on all of the above? We can clearly state that the Holocaust was a process. It progressed through the first even hesitant steps towards the final goal. That goal would never have been reached without a start. Although contemporaries may well have seen only a collection of confused and unrelated events, in reality the events across Europe were aiming at one and the same end point. Evil reaches its peak because of the first compromise... So if we want to understand the time before the Holocaust and the actual years of the Holocaust through a simple and clear grouping of the nature of the events, we could do it roughly like this: 1933-1938: Anti-Jewish propaganda, boycott of Jewish movements, legislation separating Jews from the rest of society; 1938-1939: Destruction of Jewish synagogues, vandalism and imprisonments of Jews 1939-1941: Jews no longer have any rights, transports to the East; 1941-1945: The murder of Jews in the extermination camps. (22)
This is a good time to move to the time before the Nazis. It is interesting in itself that the Jews had adapted well to German society. The assimilation of Jews progressed faster in Germany than in any other European country. For example, in the years 1901-1905, fifteen percent of Jews were married to a non-Jew. In addition, about 40,000 Jews participated in the First World War alongside the Germans. Many of them received a medal for bravery. Despite everything, anti-Semitism was common in German society already in the 19th century, just like in Austria. For example, in 1890 there were already more than 190 anti-Jewish parties in Germany. Many of them stopped later, but the idea had support. Another milestone was the arrival of Eastern Jews to Germany and Austria. For example, in Vienna in 1860 there were only 6,200 Jews, or 2.2% of the population, but in 1890 the corresponding figures were already 72,000 and 10.1%. These poor Jews came to escape pogroms in the East, but they increasingly faced similar attitudes in the West as well. What you should pay attention to here is that anti-Semitism during the Nazi era did not appear out of nowhere, but was preceded by a decades-long process. The seeds for development had already been sown almost a century earlier. It was manifested to some extent in the media, in the activities of the parties and how liberal theologians tried to deny the Jewish roots of Christianity. The following quotes tell more about the subject. They refer to Bruno Bauer, who was one of the most influential liberal theologians of the 19th century, and perhaps the most influential liberal theologian in history, along with David Friedrich Strauss. The reason for this is obvious. Because when it comes to the ideology of communism, which has led to the death of tens of millions of people, it was born under the influence of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who wrote the Communist Manifesto. Both of them were believers in God and Christ, whose faith was specifically destroyed by Bauer and another liberal theologian, David Friedrich Strauss (Richard Wurmbrandt Kristus juutalaisella tiellä , p. 99, and Satan ja Marx, p. 24). As evidence of Karl Marx's earlier belief, is e.g. the fact that his first literary work was an explanatory work on the Gospel of John called "The Covenant of the Faithful with Christ". Friedrich Engelskin wrote Christian poems before losing his faith under the influence of these liberal theologians. Free-minded liberal theology can thus be considered partly responsible for the birth of communism ideology and millions of victims. So here are some quotes about Bruno Bauer and his contribution to the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany in the 19th century:
1840s was pivotal in the history of anti-Semitism: the German theologian and philosopher Bruno Bauer introduced the “Jewish question” in his political booklet Die Judenfrage (1843). His booklet gave rise to the need to resolve the Jewish question. New race theories fitting to nationalism strengthened anti-Semitism: with the help of this new race biology – or scientific racism – people started to endorse the idea that the negative traits of the Jews were characteristically inherited, stationary racial features. In 1870s anti-Semitism gained a lot of popularity as a political -and a social phenomenon in Germany as well as in other places, especially in East Europe. (23)
By the 1840s, the question of the status and freedoms of the Jews had crystallized so far that it received its own terminological definition; the concept of the Jewish question was born. The term Judenfrage was coined in Germany, but as translations it quickly spread wherever the problems related to the emancipation of the Jews spoke to the mainstream population. The theologian and historian Bruno Bauer (1809-82) gained fame as a user of the concept of pioneer. Bauer used quite strong language about the Jews. According to Bauer, the Jews had always behaved in a way that had given others a reason to attack. Christians had by no means attacked Jews, but Jews had attacked Christendom. The reason for everything was the desire of the Jews to rule the world. For Bauer, the Jews were a caste of strangers with all possible vices but no virtues at all... When anti-Semitism began to rear its head as a political movement in Germany in the 1870s, the word anti-Semitism was part of the basic vocabulary of anti-Jewish people. The word already had a negative undertone. Now it was only a matter of time, because a counter-concept would emerge, with the help of which an attempt was made to combat the perceived negative influence of Semitism. In 1879, a lot happened in Germany on the anti-Semitic front: several anti-Semitic publications appeared and Germany's first anti-Semitic political party saw the light of day. Germany and the whole world gained a new international word – anti-Semitism. (24)
So what was the force behind Bruno Bauer's liberal theology and anti-Semitism, and which had an impact on the birth of both communism and Nazism? Bauer has partially revealed it himself. He realized that his teachings came from an evil source. It is quite obvious that he was dealing with a demon that enslaved his life and from whom his teachings came. It appears from his letter to his friend Arnold Ruge on December 6, 1841.
"The lectures I give at the university are listened to by a large audience. I don't know myself when uttering my words mocking God from behind the pulpit. My words are so horrible that these children, who should not be offended by anyone, have their hair standing up. As I recite my mockery of God, I also remember how righteously I write my sermons on the scriptures and the book of Revelation. Be that as it may, the demon in whose possession I am so often as I rise to lecture is extremely evil, and I am so weak that I must surrender to it... My spirit of mocking God will be satisfied only when I am authorized to preach openly as a professor of the atheistic system.” (Marx-Engels, Historic – critic complete edition, Publishing House ME Archiv Verlagsgesellschaft, Frankfurt a. Main, 1927, vol. I, 1).
TOWARDS EVIL IN MODERN TIMES. As stated, the lesson of history is that people don't learn anything from history. The mistake is especially in the fact that the people of today consider themselves to be somehow different from the people of history. We think that humanity is developing all the time and that nowadays we are wiser and better than in the past. However, such development optimism is a tragic mistake. It prevailed in the late 19th century, but it was stopped by the greatest wars and violence in history — at least for a short time. Because now that decades have passed since the previous wars in Western countries, many have fallen into the same development optimism as people in the late 19th century. However, in modern times we can see exactly the same signs as in Germany before the Nazis came to power. Here are a few of them:
RESPECT OF LIFE OFF
- (Ex 20:13) You shall not kill.
- (Rev 22:15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loves and makes a lie.
Perhaps the most famous thing the Nazis are known for is killing people - especially civilians who did not take part in the hostilities. It is estimated that they killed several million civilians, including women and children. It was done through gas chambers, shooting and other means. So why did the Nazis kill people? One reason is that they considered the people they killed to be some kind of subhuman. Years of negative propaganda had led them to this. After listening to years of propaganda, they saw it as justified to kill their fellow human beings. They saw nothing wrong with that. However, the lack of respect for human life did not remain with the Nazis. Because just as there was a change in attitudes in society and doctors then, a similar thing has happened in modern times. It manifests itself in many examples:
Abortion is the first example of a lack of respect for human life. The mother's womb has become as dangerous a place as the Nazi gas chambers. It is also common that when the Nazis considered the people they killed to be some kind of sub-human or non-human, even now aborted children are considered so. Indeed, the only point by which the evilness of abortion can be denied is that the fetuses to be aborted are claimed to be something other than humans. However, this is contrary to the biological knowledge that is known, because aborted children have exactly the same body members as we do: eyes, nose, mouth, ears, hands, feet, and other body parts. It is a lie to claim that this is not a human being. The next couple of quotes are related to this topic. Both refer to the same body parts we have:
You can't have an abortion with your eyes closed. You have to make sure that everything comes out of the womb and calculate that there will be enough arms and legs, chest and brain. Then when the patient wakes up from anesthesia and asks if it was a girl or a boy, the limit of my endurance has been reached and that's when I usually walk away. - If I do a procedure where I clearly kill a living being, I think it's nonsense to talk about destroying a budding life. It is killing, and I experience it as killing.” (25)
Bernard Nathanson, who at one time worked hard for the legalization of abortion, who was one of the three founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League, who ran the largest abortion clinic in Western countries and who himself performed tens of thousands of abortions, has written on the same subject. He changed his position and sees abortion as always murder. The advent of ultrasound imaging had the effect of changing his attitude:
In the end, I limited abortions to only those I thought had a compelling medical reason. This happened in the late 70s. I think rape and incest were compelling reasons. At that time, I wrote the book Aborting America. In my book, I listed many medical reasons that I thought to justify abortion. I did a few more abortions in 1978, then my last one in 1979. I had come to the conclusion that there was never any reason for an abortion. The living being in the womb is a human being, and we can no longer continue our war against the most defenseless human being. After seeing the ultrasound image, I could no longer continue with the former model. But this "turn" of mine was purely empirical .... The crux of the matter, as most abortion advocates define it, is whether the embryo - or later the fetus - is a "person." It is very important for them to focus the debate on that question, because there is no doubt that the early embryo is human. Its entire Genetic map and all its traits are undeniably human. There is no doubt about its existence either: it exists, alive, it is independent and does not have the same essence as the mother, so it is its own whole. (27)
Newborns and small children. When Hitler came to power, it took 6 years before he issued an order that doctors had to report to the Nazi regime any child born between 1936 and 1939 who had any birth defect or disease. This order, issued shortly before the Second World War, resulted in children being taken from the care facilities that cared for them and taken to special extermination facilities to be killed. At one time, up to twenty children could be killed. In the Nuremberg war trials, it was brought out that approx. 275,000 Germans had been murdered through this program. In addition to small children, the figure includes older people with disabilities and long-term patients. When Hitler gave the order to kill people, it was completely consistent with his racial thinking. According to it, the value of a person does not depend on his belonging to the human family, but on the fact that he belongs to the right race and is healthy. The sick could be killed, and this is precisely what Hitler's order aimed at, with well-known consequences. However, the same way of thinking that Hitler had is not a thing of the past. Even Nobel laureates have suggested killing newborns if they are not healthy or wanted. Such comments have been made by e.g. James D. Watson and Francis Crick. Their comments are exactly the same as what was presented in university circles and by scientists (See Ernst Haeckel's statement above!) years before the Nazis came to power and what Hitler himself presented. So history repeats itself. It is likely that such speeches and actions will increase in the future. In principle, this is a logical continuation of abortion. If the child in the womb is no longer considered a person or worthy of life, why should the children outside the womb be considered as such?
James D. Watson: If a child were declared alive only three days after birth, then all parents would have the opportunity to make the choice that so few are allowed to make under this system. The doctor could let the child die if the parents wanted to and thus avoid a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this is the only possible rational and loving attitude. (28)
Francis Crick: No newborn should be declared human until it has passed certain genetic tests, and if the test result is unsatisfactory, it should lose its viability. (29)
Euthanasia. The Nazi euthanasia program was mentioned above. It was by no means their own invention, but the idea was born in university circles and by intellectuals. The Nazis put these ideas into practice. Nowadays, euthanasia is also talked about. It is already valid in a few countries and the subject of discussion in numerous other countries. Usually it means killing elderly and infirm people - however on a voluntary basis. The arguments in favor of it are also similar to those in Germany at the beginning of the 20th century. Back then, the matter was justified with compassion, as in modern times. However, legalizing euthanasia is always problematic, even if it is based on voluntariness. It is morally problematic ("You shall not kill!") but also because it actually increases suffering. It is due to the following reasons:
• When it comes to suffering patients, it is now possible to treat even severe pain and shortness of breath to make them asymptomatic. If other means are not enough, it is possible to anesthetize the patient for a certain period of time. Hospice care and pain relief for dying patients have also improved tremendously in recent decades, although there is still room for improvement. In general, the patients' biggest problem is not physical pain, but depression, loneliness and the fear of becoming dependent on the help of others. How does the legalization of euthanasia affect the situation? It is quite certain that it will increase the burden of thousands of people. They feel it is their duty to die because the atmosphere becomes encouraging to die. Especially if a person is disabled, he is not beautiful, he does not have many loved ones or he receives expensive treatment, he may feel it is his duty to die. He can feel himself a burden to others. This kind of atmosphere that euthanasia leads to is thus one of the reasons for the increase in suffering.
• It has been established that the further a person is from the care of dying patients, the more likely he is to support euthanasia. On the other hand, the vast majority of doctors treating dying patients have not supported euthanasia. This is easy to understand because killing a patient is against traditional medical ethics and the Hippocratic Oath. This oath assures: "I will not give anyone any deadly poison - - likewise I will not give a woman any substances that destroy the fetus." Euthanasia also increases the burden on doctors in the sense that they are ultimately responsible for killing patients. Because whenever we talk about the right to euthanasia, it means that others - usually doctors - are obliged to kill. Usually it means that the doctor kills the patient with a poison injection. Society places this burden and responsibility on doctors.
• When creating an overview of the history of medicine in Western countries, it has been greatly influenced by the Hippocratic Oath, the tradition built around it, and the ethical thinking emerging from the Christian image of man. They have contributed to the fact that human life has been respected from the beginning, that is, from the moment of conception. The most important principles have been saving human lives and alleviating suffering as well as possible. Many philosophical circles now want to scrap this good and safe tradition, which has prevailed in e.g. the Nordic countries for decades. So what is the consequence of legalizing euthanasia? It was already mentioned above how it increases the mental burden of thousands of people because they feel it is their duty to die. Second, it increases the burden on many doctors because they are ultimately responsible for administering the venom injection. However, euthanasia also affects the increase in distrust towards doctors. The patient can no longer be as sure of the doctor's benevolent attitude towards him as before. For example, in the Netherlands, where the practice has been carried the longest, more than a tenth of the elderly said they were afraid that their doctors would kill them against their will [30]. Thousands carry a card in their pocket there, which states that they do not want to be killed against their will if they end up in the hospital. In countries where euthanasia is not legalized, people have much more trust in their doctors.
Xenophobia
- (Matt 25:31-46) When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say to them on his right hand, Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungered, and you gave me meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in: 36 Naked, and you clothed me: I was sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungered, and fed you? or thirsty, and gave you drink? 38 When saw we you a stranger, and took you in? or naked, and clothed you? 39 Or when saw we you sick, or in prison, and came to you? 40 And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me. 41 Then shall he say also to them on the left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungered, and you gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and you visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungered, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to you? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
If we go back to the time before the Nazi regime, the period was characterized by increased immigration of Jews to Austria and Germany. They fled the pogroms of Eastern Europe and moved to cities that were considered tolerant, such as Vienna, Berlin and Munich. They were often poor, different in their clothing and appearance, which reinforced people's prejudices. However, they seek refuge in these big cities. For example, in Vienna, the Jewish population more than quadrupled in a few decades. However, the result of the increase in the Jewish population was that politicians who were openly anti-foreign came to power. This is what happened in Vienna and other cities. What can be learned from history? At least the fact that massive immigration has its own dangers. If the economy goes bad and massive immigration increases, anti-foreign, openly racist politicians can take advantage of it, as happened decades ago (The fact that some of these politicians say they support Christian values should not fool you. Hitler also opposed e.g. abortion, but not because , that he would have cared about the children, but because he wanted soldiers for his army.). This is very possible, especially if the economy goes into a downward spiral, as happened in the 1920s and 1930s in Germany. What about the Bible's teaching on the subject? According to it, we must absolutely love the stranger and help the suffering refugees who seek refuge. Selfishness, which was the sin of Sodom, is not right and should be avoided:
- (Eze 22:7,29-31) 7 In you have they set light by father and mother: in the middle of you have they dealt by oppression with the stranger: in you have they vexed the fatherless and the widow. 29 The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy: yes, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully. 30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none. 31 Therefore have I poured out my indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed on their heads, said the Lord GOD.
- (Le 19:33,34) And if a stranger sojourn with you in your land, you shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
- (Eze 16:49,50) 49 Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
However, massive immigration has its dangers, as stated. The best thing would be for rich countries to support poor countries financially and make a fair trade policy. It could affect the fact that everyone would have the opportunity to live in their own country and they would not have to go looking for a life elsewhere. And what will happen in the future? It is possible that history will repeat itself again. At least the next prophecy refers to how xenophobia will grow and take more and more similar forms to how Jews were treated in Germany in the 1930s. The prophecy also refers to the collapse of morality and the third world war. Part of this prophecy can be seen as already fulfilled. The prophecy in question was received by an elderly Norwegian woman already in the 1960s. The well-known preacher Emmanuel Minos received the prophecy but kept it for decades because its fulfillment seemed unlikely. Today it is no longer that:
People will accept what they see and they will not have only one alternative to watch on TV; instead, they will have plenty to watch. The TV will work just as the radio. We will be able to switch from one show to another, and all of them will be full of violence. People will consider this entertaining. The worst imaginable murders and scenes of violence will be staged for people to see, and such behaviour will spread through society. Sexual intercourse will be shown on TV. The most intimate of things that should only be part of a marriage, will be shown onscreen. This will happen and you will see it taking place. The laws we now have will be broken and amazingly lecherous things will be shown to us. People from poor countries will flood to Europe. They will also arrive in Scandinavia and Norway. People will not like the refugees being here, and they will be harsh towards them. They will treat them more and more like Jews before the war. This is when the debt of sin will be filled. This will happen right before Jesus Christ returns – and before WWIII. It will be a short war. Everything I have experienced about war will be like child's play compared to this. It will start like a regular war but it will spread and end with atomic bombs. The air will be so polluted that people will not be able to breathe, and this will happen on several continents. America, Japan, Australia – the rich countries. Water will be polluted. We will not be able to cultivate the land in these places. The people still left in the rich countries will try to escape to the poorer ones that are undamaged. They will be treated there like we treat them here, and they will not be willing to accept us. (31)
TOWARDS EVIL IN THE NAMES OF LOVE. When changes occur in society in the realm of morality, they are often justified by love, compassion, and human rights. This is well illustrated by the following examples where the "Do Not Kill" command is questioned:
• The Nazis justified their euthanasia program with compassion and love. It was explained that not all life is worth living and propaganda films were made for it. • Abortion, or the killing of a child, is justified by human rights and thousands have marched for it.
What about sexuality? In that area, it has often been possible to defend e.g. sexual relations without marital commitment or that gender-neutral couples have children through fertility treatments. In the first case, the child may be born into a situation where he does not have a home ready. In the latter case, instead, the child is deprived of the right to live with both biological parents. When defending the new morality, there is often sophisticated language. when euthanasia is advocated, it is not talked about killing, but use roundabout expressions such as assisted death, easy death, dignified death or good death. However, the previous cases are about killing a person. Furthermore, when talking about a good or dignified death, what is actually meant is life. Life in the last moments can be good or bad, but death itself is the limit for everyone and it happens in an instant. The use of language is therefore important, and this is what the following quote refers to. Circular expressions get us to sympathize more easily than direct words. The question is about euthanasia:
In 2004, the British Euthanasia Association changed its name to Dignity in Dying. At the time of writing, their website carefully avoided such direct words as "euthanasia", "suicide" or "mercy killing". Instead, vague phrases such as "a dignified death with as little suffering as possible", "the ability to choose and control how we die", "assisted death" and "the decision to end suffering that has become unbearable" were used instead. Not everyone is convinced by this approach. One Daily Telegraph commentator said: "It says something when an organization has to refer to itself by a roundabout term. The Euthanasia Society now plans to call itself "Dignity in Dying". Who among us would not want to die with dignity? It’s not hard to believe that the promoters of euthanasia (indeed!) are afraid to say directly what they’re actually driving, namely killing people. ” (32) One hospice nurse responded to the description of assisted suicide with the term "assisted death": "Midwives assist in childbirth, and palliative care nurses assist with special palliative care. Assisting is not the same as killing. The term 'assisted death' offends those of us who provide good end-of-life care. It is a deception in which killing is sanitized to make it more acceptable to the general public. It implies that a person can only die with dignity if they are killed." (33) (34)
What happens when people give up the Christian faith? It is well known that atheists attack the Christian faith. This has been done publicly by Richard Dawkins and other well-known atheists. In reality, however, the target of these persons' attacks is usually not the Christian faith and its content, that is, what Jesus and the apostles taught. Instead, they have usually focused their attention on what constitutes apostasy and where the teachings of Jesus and the apostles have not been followed. So the atheists are right in their accusations, but the fault is not in the Christian faith, that is, in the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, but in people who do not respect and follow their teachings. Everyone knows that Jesus was perfectly good and righteous when he was on earth, and if we follow his example, then there can be no hatred or wrongdoing towards others. There can be no anti-Semitism, no spiritual violence and no other injustice. Therefore, a person who does wrong does not follow the example and teachings of Jesus. Another possibility is that such a person has not even come into contact with God. For example, Paul wrote: Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived ... (1 Cor 6: 9). So where does atheism lead? Its problem is especially that it is difficult to justify any moral values on the basis of atheism and natural sciences. It is difficult for an atheist to anchor the concepts of good and evil to anything permanent if he does not take God into account. So Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a well-known writer, stated in his time: "If there is no God, everything is permitted. The seed of immense destruction is attached to Western rationalism. When God is made non-existent and removed from the world, the measure of everything is man. And after that there is no evil , which could not be justified by reason. Even killing an innocent person can be explained as morally justified and beneficial." (35). He was absolutely right, because if morality is based on a person, it varies from person to person. There may be a big difference between the worst dictators and, for example, Mother Teresa. Thus, atheism is more dangerous than, for example, Islam. It is so in theory, but the last century also proved it in practice. The leaders of Communism were openly atheistic and the leaders of Nazism were either atheists or at least persons who did not believe in the judgment that is after this life. If they had believed that they would have to answer to God for their actions, they certainly would not have committed them. The thought of judgment after this life and the belief in it keeps one from doing wrongs to others.
John C. Lennox: Marx was of the opinion that, "because religion is only an illusion of human happiness, its defeat is necessary for their true happiness." Atheism, then, lies at the very heart of the communist agenda. For this reason, many citizens of former communist countries, with whom I have discussed atheists' assurances, reject them mad and ridiculous. Haven't Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris ever read the Black Book of Communism, which shows that "communist rulers in support of their power by creating a system of government whose actual mode of action has been genocide?" They are estimated to have caused about 94 million deaths, of which 85 million are the responsibility of China and Russia alone. (36)
Alexandr Solzenitsyn: Over half a century ago, when I was still a child, I remember hearing many elderly people talking about the disasters that Russia faced like so: “People have forgotten about God; this is all because of it.” After that I have studied the Russian revolution for over 50 years; during that time I have read hundreds of books, collected personal stories and have written eight books myself to research those phases. But, if I were asked to summarize as shortly as possible the primary reason for the horrific revolution, which took ca. 60 million of our people, I could not say it any more clearly than to repeat: People have forgotten about God; this is all because of it.” (37)
The previous quotes were related to communism and its atheistic system. At the end of this, it is worth taking a prediction from the 19th century, which is related to the development of Germany, because this writing has mainly discussed the development in Germany. The prediction is from Heinrich Heine's 1834 work Zur Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland (History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany). It is an eerie description of what would happen in Germany a hundred years from now. This prediction really came true. When the Christian faith lost its influence, it was replaced by Nazi ideology, which had no place for an almighty God. A similar development is very possible again in Western countries, because the Christian faith has lost its meaning. If there is an economic depression like before the rise of Nazism, anything is possible. Here is the prediction from 1834:
The Christian faith - which is its greatest achievement - has to some extent reduced the cruel love of the Germans for war, but has not been able to destroy it. If that restraining talisman - the cross - is crushed, then the frantic madness of the ancient warriors, the insane rage that the Nordic bards have often talked about and sung, will once again ignite into flames. This talisman of mine is fragile, and once comes the day when it collapses miserably. Then the ancient stone gods rise from the forgotten rubble and massage the millennial dust from their eyes, and finally Tor jumps up and smashes the Gothic cathedrals with his huge hammer. ... Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. ... When you hear a rumble like never before heard in world history, you know that Germany's lightning strike has finally hit. In that rumble, the eagles of the sky fall dead to the ground and the lions of even the most remote deserts in Africa hide in their royal caves. In Germany, a play is performed that makes the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll. (38)
References:
1. Quote from Diogenes Alleni: Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, p.2 2. Toht. Chr. Ernst Luthard: Kristinuskon perustotuuksista, p. 2 3. L.H. Christian: Kylvöä ja satoa, p. 114,115 4. L.H. Christian: Kylvöä ja satoa, p. 124 5. Olavi Paavolainen: Risti ja hakaristi, p. 211, 214, 239, 290 6. Peter Hoffman: Hitler’s Personal Security, p. 264 7. Linton AE, Times Higher Education Supplement (20.4.2001), p. 29 8. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio, The Lie: Evolution, p. 112,113 9. Richard Weikart: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany, p. 114 10. H.G. Wells: Historian ääriviivat 1924, p. 746, 747 11. De Beer: Charles Darwin, p. 266 12. Steven Ascheim E.: In Times of Crisis: Essays on European culture, Germans and Jews, p. 111 13. Nick D. A. Kemp: ”Merciful Release” The History of the British Euthanasia Movement, p. 19 14. Richard Weikart: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany, p. 11 15. Usko ja tiede, p. 33 16. Ernst Haeckel: Wonders of life, 1904, p. 118 17. Hitler's Secret Book, p. 18; Haeckel, The History of Creation, 1883, 1. p. 170. 18. V.R.: monisteita 19. Max Rainerin lausunto siteerattu teoksessa Burleigh, Third Reigh, p. 300 20. Leon Goldensohn: Nürnbergin haastattelut (The Nuremberg Interviews), p. 120 21. Ronald Boyd-MacMillan: Faith that Endures: The Essential Guide to the Persecuted Church (2006), Revell. USA 22. Susanna Kokkonen: Matka holokaustiin, p. 173,175 23. Antero Holmila: Holokausti, tapahtumat ja tulkinnat, p. 33 24. Eero Kuparinen: Antisemitismin musta kirja, p. 143,144,153,154 25. Suomen kuvalehti, n:o 15, 10.4.1970 26. Päivi Räsänen: Kutsuttu elämään (?), p. 146 27. Bernard Nathanson: Antakaa minun elää (The Hand of God) p. 109,111 28. was originally published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Prism, May 1973 29. Pasific News Service, January 1978 30. Richard Miniter, ”The Dutch Way of Death”, Opinion Journal (April 28, 2001) 31. Prophecy received in Norway and passed on by Emmanuel Minos 32. http://telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3622559/Euthanasias-euphemism.html 33. Cited in the article Finlay, I.G. et.al., Palliative Medicine, 19:444-453 34. John Wyatt: Elämän & kuoleman kysymyksiä (Matters of Life and Death), p. 204,205 35. Suomen kuvalehti 13/9.96 H Hakamies 36. John C. Lennox: Tähtäimessä Jumala (Gunning for God), p. 109 37. Jukka Norvanto: Raamattu elämään, Alussa 1 Moos 1-5, p. 34 38. Cited from: Eric Metaxas: Bonhoeffer, pastori, marttyyri, näkijä, vakooja, p.177
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
|
