Dietrich Bonhoeffer (William Hamilton 1966)

... There is .. in Bonhoeffer’s vision of the world come of age, a rejection of religion as salvation either by transmitting the individual to some protected religious realm, or even as protection from something that, without religion, a man might fall into, like despair or self-righteousness. Put more clearly, Bonhoeffer states that in the world come of age, we can no longer be religious, if religion is defined as that system that treats God or the gods as need-fulfillers and problem-solvers ...

The plea for a religionless Christianity is thus a plea to give up all claims for the necessity of religion generally. Christianity -- as would be true of any religion and any irreligion -- is not necessary. It is merely one of the possibilities available to man in a competitive and pluralistic spiritual situation today. Christians are perfectly free to offer their wares to the world come of age, the religionless world. But they have no head starts, ontological or psychological. This in turn implies no clergy deductions, no tax exemption and no preferential treatment of any kind. Finally, when men say "no" to Christianity, it is a real "no," and not a deeply concealed "yes" masked under a protest against false religion. There are those, Bonhoeffer says, who can make it today without God and without despair and guilt. And their success is just as real as the fulfillment of those who live happily and have a God.

We can begin to see what Bonhoeffer is doing and persuading us to do. He is undermining the traditional Christian confidence in language, argument, debate; in short, our assurance that we can persuade an indifferent world that it really needs God. He is forcing us to shift our center of attention from theology, apologetics, criticism of culture, the problem of communication, and even from hermeneutics, to the shape and quality of our lives. He has enabled us to note, in Protestantism, perhaps he has even brought about, the end of theological confidence, and the beginning of a time of confusion between theology and ethics. The communication of the Christian in our world is likely to be, at least for a time, essentially ethical and nonverbal. Christians themselves, at work in the world of the twentieth century, saying their "yes" to it as vigorously as possible, provide the dynamic evidence for the truth or falsity of their message.

The time when the real vitality of Protestantism was intellectual and centered in the Academy is at an end. The Protestant continues to engage his unbelieving brother, but he is likely to be engaging him by working alongside him. What distinguishes this Christian from his non-Christian comrade? If there is any answer to that, it may well be found by meditating on the third, and most elusively powerful, of Bonhoeffer’s ideas, written nine months before he was hanged: "Man is challenged to participate in the sufferings of God at the hands of a godless world."

http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=537&C=591

not long before he was tortured and hanged. He came from an aristocratic family, had his Ph D in theology by the age of 21. Later he spent time at Union Theological Seminary in New York studying under Reinhold Niebuhr before returning to Germany and immediately speaking out against Hitler. Later he engaged in a plot to kill Hitler.

One can only imagine what he thought as he was at Buchenwald, knowing that the German church had not only failed to oppose Hitler, but had been complicit in Nazism as well.

Bonhoeffer died in his 30's, but his later writings and his personal example have been influential throughout the world. The liberation movement in Latin America and South America have claimed him. James Dobson has claimed him. In the 60's, William Hamilton and Thomas J.J. Altizer, the "God is Dead" theologians claimed him. Desmond Tutu speaks of him specifically as an example to follow when your enemy has no conscience.

He was also a pacifist.

Interesting fellow, Bonhoeffer.

Thanks for posting.

try to convince a bunch of Liberal Atheists to do that type of dirty work and lots of luck.

they suggest a rather different picture than your glib snark

have to do with atheism? Do you even know the religious affiliation of any of the people who committed these crimes?

torture comment seriously and give you a selection of recent news stories about torture that doesn't support your snark. You change the subject to atheism. Have a nice day! :hi:

was not posted by skepticscott? You seem to be under the false impression that you are making multiple replies to the same user in sequence, which is not the case.

and another incoherent response?

How exactly did your listing of random incidents of torture "suggest a rather different picture" than that "glib snark" that suggested a difference in the inclination to participate in torture between atheists and the religious?

actual realities should shape your ideas. My "random" sample of torture incidents comprises events recently reported in the English language press, as found in the first few pages of a Google news search, and so it is a snapshot of some recent torture. The snapshot doesn't support the view that religion is the major issue

He said nothing about whether religion was the major motivating issue behind the torture, only that people who were religious were more likely to participate in it. They're not the same, so since your tediously long litany of torture incidents doesn't indicate the religious affiliation of any of the people involved, it neither supports nor contradicts that.

If so, then I see a potential problem of self-reference. "Do as I say" doesn't itself specify what is to be done. In this case, we actually seem to be considering a situation of "don't do as I say that you aren't to do." However, you haven't provided any kind of rule, but merely provided a hint that my previous post in this thread violates some rule. The rule itself may exist in your mind but, until you provide more information, it isn't possible to conclude that it exists anywhere else.