God won't let evil men destroy His plans

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:02 pm

Spot,

The idea that God made Jesus go to the cross is derived from personal opinion. The Bible doesn’t support the notion. Also, those of us who accept Christ as part of God could argue that God gave his life and God picked it back up again.

John 10:17 (New American Standard Bible) "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18"No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."

John 5:24"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life

Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

John 10:15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and lay down My life for the sheep.

Let’s consider God as the Father and Jesus as the Son. Suppose the Father is allowing his Son to suffer. The Father knows the value of what his Son is doing and He knows the end of the story. I can imagine the Father was extremely pleased with His Son for being the selfless man He was supposed to be. The Father and the Son would also see the act as something that couldn’t be avoided.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Jesus is clearly referring to those who call on His name with false motives and without turning their ways toward Him. I think of those today who are suspect to me like Benny Henn, Pat Robertson and the like. They speak prophetically and do some amazing things but it seems to me (not judging) that it is all for self aggrandizement.

That's all my tiny little mind can come up with at the moment.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:20 pm

Clint:-6

I find it rather revolting to think that God was so angry that he needed blood to assuage his anger. That is what one would see in a spoiled, petulant child. There are many interpretations to the death of Jesus that do not paint God as demanding blood.

Actually the theology of the atonement began with Augustine and it has never been accepted by all Christians.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:00 am

What this thread lacks at the moment is input from the 28% of Americans who believe in a literal Bible. It's not as though FG doesn't have a representative selection of them available for comment, after all. I want someone to crucify for "God won't let evil men destroy His plans".

Clint suggests that "The idea that God made Jesus go to the cross is derived from personal opinion" but then gives the literalist compulsion, "for this reason", himself:John 10:17 (New American Standard Bible) "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.The love of the Father for His Son Jesus is conditional on Jesus laying down His life? "For this reason the Father loves Me"? If Jesus weren't a willing sacrifice the Father's love for Him would be withheld? I'll quote myself again from earlier in the thread again even if it's bad form: "I'm a parent. I don't do this sort of thing to my children. I deplore anyone, God included, who thinks there's the remotest justification for that sort of 'love'".

I do think, to whatever extent and in whatever manner the historical Jesus went to the cross, that he quite likely did think God's love for Him was conditional, I'm not saying it wasn't a part of His mindset. What I'm saying is that His mindset was conditioned by his times and environment, and that His underlying message can only benefit us if we interpret it within today's society, today's moral debate. We don't lose Ted's "baby", Christianity itself, if we throw out cultural elements of Jesus' understanding of God, scary though the thought might initially sound and much as Ted seems to want to avoid that thought by blaming Augustine.

Obviously Jesus understood God in terms of that petty jealous genocidal tyrant God of the Old Testament, as did Paul, while coming up with an apparent "kill me instead, I want to suffer" solution. I don't even think Jesus had the "on their behalf" part of the formula in His mind, Paul added that, working out how the God he knew could be placated with innocent blood. They were both first century Jews, after all, how else were they meant to think? Christianity is so much more than that freeze-framed moment in history, but it only can be more if "inerrant bible" fundamentalism is given up and Christians are freed from smug saved superior literalists who claim sole possession, out of everyone in the world and in history, of the truth.

As for Benny Henn and Pat Robertson being told plainly 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' by a judgemental Christ, that's as foreign to reality as any of their own bible-inspired fantasies.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:46 am

spot;509771 wrote: What this thread lacks at the moment is input from the 28% of Americans who believe in a literal Bible. It's not as though FG doesn't have a representative selection of them available for comment, after all. I want someone to crucify for "God won't let evil men destroy His plans".Most have left, if not all. Check the Nut's forum. I noticed a few there when I lurked.

As for the rest, Spot, I really think you're trying to overcomplicate a very simple concept of love. If I say 'that's why my dad loves me' I'm not saying that he wouldn't love me otherwise.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:53 am

The words are "for this reason he loves me". If these bible literalists insist on taking the words exactly as they're expressed in the bible then they're stuck with the consequences.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 4:55 am

spot;509875 wrote: The words are "for this reason he loves me". If these bible literalists insist on taking the words exactly as they're expressed in the bible then they're stuck with the consequences.
"I like you for your wit" in no way implies I would hate you if you were slow.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:20 am

Accountable;509877 wrote: "I like you for your wit" in no way implies I would hate you if you were slow.

Who said hate? "I like you because of your wit" implies at least indifference were the cause of the liking, the wit, not there. The wit is the reason for the liking. "For this reason" are the emphatic words. Why bring hate into it? Jesus says there that the reason God loves Him is "because I lay down My life". The cause of the love, He says, is the self-sacrifice.

Paul extrapolates that into Jesus redeeming the sins of those He chooses to redeem with the payment, expressing that elsewhere as Jesus having bought them. God, in Paul's opinion, demands that justice has a higher priority than love, and the consequence of such a view is that some people are rejected by God's Judgement into an eternity of damnation and torment. Either we've got beyond such language (by reading the bible as a text carrying cultural context as well as eternal truths) or the biblical literalists are the true and only Christians.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:34 am

spot;509896 wrote: Who said hate? "I like you because of your wit" implies at least indifference were the cause of the liking, the wit, not there. The wit is the reason for the liking. "For this reason" are the emphatic words. Why bring hate into it? Jesus says there that the reason God loves Him is "because I lay down My life". The cause of the love, He says, is the self-sacrifice.

Paul extrapolates that into Jesus redeeming the sins of those He chooses to redeem with the payment, expressing that elsewhere as Jesus having bought them. God, in Paul's opinion, demands that justice has a higher priority than love, and the consequence of such a view is that some people are rejected by God's Judgement into an eternity of damnation and torment. Either we've got beyond such language (by reading the bible as a text carrying cultural context as well as eternal truths) or the biblical literalists are the true and only Christians.
Okay, nix the 'hate' word, then. If I had taken my critical thinking & logic class more recently, I'd be able to name the fallacy in your argument, but my memory has let me down. The debate's just not that important to me, I guess. I hope it's more than mere mental exercise for you.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:45 am

Naming it is subsidiary to demonstrating it, one might think. Applying a clever label doesn't mean the label's applicable. I think I'm doing fine as far as either logic or language goes.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 5:53 am

spot;509907 wrote: Naming it is subsidiary to demonstrating it, one might think. Applying a clever label doesn't mean the label's applicable. I think I'm doing fine as far as either logic or language goes.
Of course you do. :wah:

Gotta run. Have fun.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 6:24 am

Directly on the heels of my posting a comment on this thread..( hours, actually) I had the good fortune, quite surprisingly, to have breakfast with ( of all things) a Catholic Priest. My dad, having just come from mass, invited him to join us. A couple of the stories he told, moved me emmotionally, almost to tears. As he continued to look me directly in my eyes, I couldnt help but have the feeling that he was intentionally placed at that table for me. Originally from Ireland, this man was ordained in 1954. Which would make him about 77 years old. I generally have absolutely no interest in clergy. And so, again ( I marvel at the way the package was presented) the man was James Cagneys clone. So if for no other reason, I was drawn to listen to him as James Cagney has always been an idol of mine. Back in around 1949 or 1950.... the movie Boys Town opened in theaters in Ireland. Spencer Tracy was the star, and played Father Flannery, the real priest who started the home. Our breakfast guest was a teenager at the time. One day he was smoking in an alley with a friend.. when a priest started walking towards them. The friend ran... stating " I cannott have a priest see me smoking. The priest approached, and to my new acquaintances surprise, and amazement it was the real Father Flannery ( in town to promote the movie)

These are the words spoken to me last Sunday Morning." He never mentioned RELIGION, he never mentioned GOD, he never quoted SCRIPTURE. He looked into my eyes, and I discovered the most GENUINE human being I had ever met. He said to me, " If you do nothing else with your life... committ yourself to always be a mentor to the young." " It was at that moment that I made the decision to become a priest. I never looked back, and I never waivered in my decision. For me, the incredulousness of this story is the fact that he described 3 things that have been cornerstones of my existence. A genuine human being has more power to move people spiritually, than the most educated theologian. Scripture falls on deaf ears when presented like medicine. And that we do have a responsibility to mentor the young. The encounter was also very powerful for me also because for the first time in many years I felt an affection for and almost a longing for the familiarity of my Catholic upbringing. This very GENUINE priest, human being made me realize that I ignorantly have determined that all Catholic priests must be charlots because of aligning themselves with the politics of this denomination. At the least, he made me think I might just take a second look at some of the doctrine I left behind many years ago.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:39 pm

weeder:-6

A beautiful story and how true it is.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:45 pm

spot:-6

I am in complete agreement with your comment that the Bible should be interpreted in light of today's culture. Absolutely correct.

According the scholars the theology of atonement was around but brought to the forefront by Augustine. He was not the only one but the one who made the most noise about it.

According to scholarship there are no quotes from Jesus in the Gospel of John. What is presented are the words put into Jesus mouth by the evangelist, whoever that was. Jesus did not say in effect that God loves him because he chose to die. They are based on the theology of the evangelist.

There are several books out by Crossan and Borg and others that outline quite clearly how it would appear the gospels came to be written.

A literal interpretation of scriptures leads to all kinds of ridiculous claims.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:52 pm

spot;509771 wrote: What this thread lacks at the moment is input from the 28% of Americans who believe in a literal Bible. It's not as though FG doesn't have a representative selection of them available for comment, after all. I want someone to crucify for "God won't let evil men destroy His plans".

I'm a literalist compared to Ted but it's too late because you've already crucified me.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:53 am

Ted;510275 wrote: According to scholarship there are no quotes from Jesus in the Gospel of John. What is presented are the words put into Jesus mouth by the evangelist, whoever that was. Jesus did not say in effect that God loves him because he chose to die. They are based on the theology of the evangelist.My critism of the text presupposed a literalist interpretation, Ted. The criticism makes no sense whatever in any other context and I would argue that the literalist interpretation is impossible to sustain save by a blind refusal to face the damnable consequences.

I'd beg your indulgence for a few moments, though, while asking you to set me straight on something I've slept on and puzzled over. I hope you don't feel I'm challenging you personally.

The position of those who seek the historical kernel of New Testament writings by recognizing late additions in another's name is certainly revealing and instructive. I recognize the likelihood of some of the analyses and the brightness of the restoration once the varnish has been peeled away. Schweitzer may be obsolete but reading his study was enlightening for me when I first found it. I appreciate that as he built on Renan's so others have built solidly on his foundations.

However. The underlying implication - or assumption by some people, if you prefer - which a distancing of Gospel quotations from the mouth of Jesus carries is that if we really and absolutely knew the exact words of the historical Christ they would in their own right be authoritatively binding on all of His followers for all time. The implication is that we can put the fallible authors and editors into their cultural context but that Jesus is an untouchable perfect voice independent of His time and place. Yet whether the final condition of a given part of the biblical text is from Jesus himself or from an author or editor it's still a voice from the first 150 years of the Christian era.

I think you're mistaken in trying to, as it were, absolve Jesus of the doctrine of atonement by parking it as far away from Him as you can take it, whether as far off as Augustine or just as far as a pseudo-Pauline imitator, or even just as far off as Paul himself. Even if the idea of atonement were an entirely accurate reflection of the mind of Jesus it's still a first-century Jewish mind, fed by the messianic expectations of the day and by His society's interpretation of God's will.

I submit that Christianity can grow and flourish even if it has to update some of the ideas Jesus assumed, because of His time and place, to be true, rather than balk at jumping such a challenging fence by blaming lesser men for tinkering with His teachings. Jesus was a product of His age as well as the inspiration for what might one day actually become, finally and not before time, a world-wide religion of peace and reconciliation, and treating Him as omniscient leaves all the problems intact that you're trying so hard to circumvent.

So, are we obliged to treat the sayings of Jesus, even cleaned of varnish, as infallible and if so, why? If not we can perhaps stop straining so hard to reduce their number to vanishing point.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I think, reached the conclusion that Christianity needed to take this step and Paul Tillich would surely have agreed. It's not a non-Christian position to adopt and it disposes of the Gordian knot we seem to have been discussing.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:58 pm

spot:-6

I am in agreement that we need to see the authentic sayings of Jesus in light of 21st Cent. culture.

Jesus was a 1st Cent. Jewish peasant. He was totally human so even if we are able to narrow down the words put in Jesus mouth by the evangelists from those that can be traced back to the historical Jesus we still must reinterpret them in light of today. I see no problem with that.

Was Jesus omniscient? I don't think so. He was a human born to Joseph(?) and Mary.

The question becomes was the atonement a concept familiar to Jesus and his goal? Many mainline scholars do not believe that Jesus came to die or wanted to die but that he was willing to give his life for his convictions.

What is now being considered is the pre-easter or historical Jesus is different in many ways from the post-easter or the Christ of Faith. The historical Jesus is what was experienced before his death. What was experienced after his death and the resurrection event is what came to be understood as the Christ of faith a Divine reality.

At this point we look at the words of Paul from Rom. 1:3-4. "Paul speaks of Jesus as 'descended from David according to the flesh, and declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead'" pg66

"Jesus", Marcus Borg.

Ultimately what matters in all of this is not are the stories historical but what do they mean. What is their more-than-literal meaning or their more-than-historical meaning.

Shalom

Ted:-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:49 pm

Is there any point in asking whether or not Jesus might have been a combination of different people? Like many characters in great works of fiction... based on truth?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:15 pm

koan:-6

The general trend among mainline scholars is that Jesus was a human being who enjoyed a very special relationship with the Divine. He was an exorcist, healer, spirit person etc.

I should also add that they make a distinction between the pre-easter Jesus and the post-easter Jesus whom they see as a Divine reality.

I tend to go with that as well.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:20 pm

Clint:-6

I do hope that no one has crucified you. LOL That you may be more literal than I is unimportant. I've known Christians from far right to far left. It is only the extremists that I have a problem with. They tend to do dumb things like picket at the funerals of gays and lesbians or publicly claim that AIDS is God's payoff for what they see as "evil" behaviour.

Shalom

Ted:-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:24 pm

Ted;511941 wrote: koan:-6

The general trend among mainline scholars is that Jesus was a human being who enjoyed a very special relationship with the Divine. He was an exorcist, healer, spirit person etc.

I should also add that they make a distinction between the pre-easter Jesus and the post-easter Jesus whom they see as a Divine reality.

I tend to go with that as well.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I believe he was a human being who said some very important things. I do tend to think that the Jesus most people read about is a combination of more than one person though.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:44 pm

koan:-6

I've never seen anything in the works I have read that would indicate so. That however, is a matter of personal belief.

Shalom

Ted:-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:47 pm

Ted;511964 wrote: koan:-6

I've never seen anything in the works I have read that would indicate so. That however, is a matter of personal belief.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Yes, it would be.

As far as infallibility goes, I've never seen anything in life or literature that convinces me it is a legitimate quality.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:59 pm

koan:-6

It is my opinion that nothing of human construction is infallible and of course neither is any human being.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:26 am

The pope's a human.

Is nature infallible? :yh_think

Nature's natural, so I guess the answer is yes.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:38 am

Novelty;518623 wrote: Is not the Pope of Human construction?

Is Nature infallible?Your computer is of human construction, Novelty. The pope lives and breathes like the rest of us.

As for Nature, you might need to say what you mean by the word. Generally it's the phenomena of the physical world collectively especially plants, animals, and other features and products of the earth itself, as opposed to humans and human creations. In wider sense: the whole natural world, including human beings; the cosmos. I don't see how that can take on any aspect of fallible or infallible though there are other uses of "nature" as a word. Perfect or imperfect would be more reasonable.

The central question under discussion, if you check the thread title, is whether the Christian God's redemption is universal or whether some people, for whatever reason, end up in perpetual unceasing torment after they die and if so what class of people fall into that category.

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 7:11 am

Novelty;518658 wrote: He is still constructed, he is designed to do a task.Ah. The office rather than the incumbent. No, the office evolved from a historical context in which the worldwide Church Militant was no bigger than ForumGarden, we just haven't got round to needing a Pope yet. Yes, the holder of the office is infallible in pronouncing on Church dogma within very strictly limited circumstances described as speaking "ex cathedra". People only have trouble with this when they confuse Church dogma with "truth", especially if prefixed with "absolute".

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 7:27 am

Hmmmm ... :yh_think ...... the infallible Gardener ...... :yh_think .......... I vote for Flopstock! :yh_idea

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:03 am

Accountable;518674 wrote: Hmmmm ... :yh_think ...... the infallible Gardener ...... :yh_think .......... I vote for Flopstock! :yh_idea

I'm told, and agree, that I should clarify my thoughts from my previous post on infallibility, so here goes.

Until 1870 some popes declared some of their statements to be infallible. Some subsequent popes demonstrated the meaninglessness of such claims to infallibility by overturning some of those statements. The First Vatican Council of 1870 boxed it all into what would be better named a Doctrine of Fallibility by saying that nothing said by any pope was infallible unless it was said in a very rare and specified circumstance. Infallible declarations of dogma since then are so rare that the last time such a pronouncement was made by a pope was in 1950.

Given which, I'm quite content that we box Flopstock's future comments in with similar constraints and refer to her as from now on as Fallible Floppy.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:51 pm

Like spot I don't see how one could apply the term infallible to nature. Also I would agree that better wording for nature would be perfect and imperfect. However, I don't believe that anything is "perfect".

A comment on the OP. I would suggest that such a view represents the earlier paradigm rather than the emerging paradigm.

Shalom

Ted

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:12 am

Novelty;519905 wrote: Why do Christians believe the story of creation is infallible?All Christians don't. Some Christians do. Why does anyone at all believe the [biblical, presumably] story of creation is infallible [or, more likely, inerrant; only people can be infallible]? Because they're bullied and deluded by power-tripping church leaders who want a walled-in flock defending indefensible beliefs from the scepticism of everyone else on the planet, I reckon, but I'm only guessing. If the One Small Church is the only part of creation to inherit the Kingdom of God then the members can scarcely move elsewhere, can they.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:38 am

Novelty;519928 wrote: Teaching or a Book can be infallible...
There's where we disagree, then. I'm glad we worked that out.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:48 am

Novelty;519941 wrote: Soory to bust your bubble, but i ment to say: can be defined as infallible, not actually infallible.
Dogma is as dogma does, of course. It's why dogma's invariably so destructive of faith. Maybe we need an infallible dogmatic pronouncement from the Pope that no dogma is infallible, that'd confuse the laity even further.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:46 pm

The problem is that far too many folks worry about what will happen after death. Our mission as Christians is to worry about the here and now and promote the Kingdom of God here on earth and let God worry about after death.

Our job as Christians is well laid out in a few words in Micah 6:8 where we are told to "do justice and love kindness and to walk humbly with our God". That seems pretty plain to me. Though it is further amplified in Matt 25:31ff.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:49 pm

Now I see, by the google ads above the thread list, that Canada is in the Bible. Talk about creative seeing or is it delusion?

Shalom

Ted:-6

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:15 pm

Ted;520333 wrote: The problem is that far too many folks worry about what will happen after death. Our mission as Christians is to worry about the here and now and promote the Kingdom of God here on earth and let God worry about after death.

Our job as Christians is well laid out in a few words in Micah 6:8 where we are told to "do justice and love kindness and to walk humbly with our God". That seems pretty plain to me. Though it is further amplified in Matt 25:31ff.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted, I can't let this opportunity pass without comment. I hope you are sitting down. I AGREE WITH THIS POST 100%.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:11 pm

Clint:-6

It took a few minutes but I managed to get over it. LOL

Shalom

Ted:-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:49 am

Novelty;520838 wrote: That's because it's your recruitment drive...
I like the benefits package.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:20 pm

Novelty:-6

I don't believe for one moment that Christians need a recruitment drive.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Clint · Post by **Clint** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:31 pm

Ted;521547 wrote: Novelty:-6

I don't believe for one moment that Christians need a recruitment drive.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I'm shocked, that's twice in one thread...Ted.

If it was lived as it is taught, everyone would be drawn to Christianity.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:47 pm

Clint:-6

Don't be shocked. If one has something worthwhile to offer and they can see it in one's life than no one needs a recruitment drive. If folks don't see anything worthwhile in how we live than no recruitment drive will help.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:15 pm

Novelty:-6

I'm really not sure what your problem is.

Religion is not taught here in the public school system.

Yes the church has made errors in the past. However, it doesn't hold a monopoly on atrocities etc. Yes people were killed in the name of God. Let us consider Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung; they led atheistic societies and in totality killed far more people then killed by the ancient or modern church.

Your comments on Christianity clearly show a lack of knowledge about where modern theology and Biblical scholarship are taking us. Yes, you are wrong. But that is ok everyone is allowed their opinion.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:23 pm

Ted;523609 wrote: Let us consider Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung; they led atheistic societiesUmm. Well, almost. Old Adolf was a practicing Roman Catholic and not only claimed to be Christian all his life but was spoken of as religious by contemporaries who had little reason to deceive anyone on so minor a matter. As for Germany, it's never come close to atheistic even during the 30s and 40s, it's split between Roman Catholic and Lutheran mostly. The Confessing Church was a Lutheran offshoot which was banned but that was because they stood up against anti-semitism. German theologians would be very upset at the notion that Germany was ever an atheistic society.