Parenthetically, I think some Holocaust deniers really know that it did occur, but they deny it for two reasons: a) it bugs the Jews and b) they hope to clear away obstacles to another version of Hitler and a new Holocaust of some sort.

For example, if A says “According to Kant, Judaism has no concept of an afterlife and hence is not really a religion at all,” and B responds by saying “Hitler said the same thing in Mein Kampf” (see vol. I chapt. 11 “Nation and Race”) that has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of Kant’s assertion. A proper refutation would require references to such biblical passages as Daniel 12:2-3, Psalm 23:6, or Isaiah 65: 17-18 (KJV) to demonstrate that Kant slandered an entire group of people without even understanding what they believed. This is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments, which says, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” – that is, against even one person, let alone against many.

To put it another way, if someone says “Kant was too sheltered from real life and was in fact nothing but a gigantic bookworm whose influence on philosophy has been all bad,” that has nothing to do with the validity of Kant’s statement “there is not a single metaphysical which has not been solved, or for the solution of which a key at least has not been supplied” (Preface to the First Edition of Critique of Pure Reason, quoted in Colin Brown’s Philosophy and the Christian Faith). Nevertheless, while inadequate as a refutation, it may still have some truth in it, and was never intended to be a refutation of any specific argument.

If you are interested in a more reasoned critique of the false principles and negative consequences of Kant’s epistemology – which I never attempted in a blog – I recommend Stephen R. C. Hicks’ book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Scholargy Publishing 2004). Hicks quotes Moses Mendelssohn as calling Kant “the all-destroyer.” And then, Nietzsche described Kant as – but who cares about that fascist kook Nietzsche?

Also interesting are Michael Mack’s German Idealism and the Jew: The Inner Anti-Semitism of Philosophy and German Jewish Responses, as well as Paul Lawrence Rose’s German Question / Jewish Question: Revolutionary Antisemitism from Kant to Wagner.

It is difficult to respond rationally to things that are not rationally motivated.

Who knows, it is possible that this person over time might come to realize that he is guilty of many sins that require forgiveness, that he has a debt to God that he cannot pay himself, but that has been paid for him.

What are we, living the *&%$ Stone Age!!!!???

Blood sacrifice!!!!!! ?????? Are you *&%$#@ kidding me!!!????

Listen, you can take that blood sacrifice #@*&$@#$ %$#@&* and *&%$#@#%^ %$#@*&%$ $#@^&*$ @#$%&%$#@ !!!!”—–Jesus $#@%& Christ

Kant said the Jews were only materialists who did not have any concept of an afterlife and were concerned only with material goods – a stupid and false criticism that later became a main theme of German antisemites including of course the Nazis.

As a philosopher, Kant’s influence was great – too bad his influence was negative. My personal opinion is that Kant was a conceited fool.

It is a question of God’s timing –but was Bonhoeffer really doing the Lord’s work? Was it in the will of God to engage in undercover assassination plots while saying nothing significant that I can see about repentance from sin, receipt of the Holy Spirit, and new life in Christ? Did Bonhoeffer even believe in those things? I don’t think he did.

Many today do not care if Bonhoeffer denied the historicity of Genesis (see documentation in blog #3), but others can clearly see that it nullifies Paul’s account in Romans of how sin came into the world and introduces mythology into the very heart of the Gospel.

Did Bonhoeffer believe there was a hell? Did he once mention the blood of Christ? If he did, I’ll be glad to learn it. Did he understand the necessity and nature of the new birth? What was his message and his mission exactly?To make Christianity more relevant to modern man by eliminating its mythological elements and reducing it to the level of human understanding? That was Bultmann’s mission, and Bonhoeffer spoke well of Bultmann.Bultmann denied Christianity itself and is still called “neo-orthodox.” We might just as well call Karl Marx, Genghis Khan, or Mick Jagger “neo-orthodox.”

I also cite in blog #3 where Bonhoeffer questioned the historicity of the resurrection and of the virgin birth. This is at the very foundation of so-called neo-orthodoxy (which has been called just another form of liberalism only using more religious language).

And what about this idea of Bonhoeffer’s? “If Jesus Christ is to be described as God, we may not speak of his divine being [!!!], nor of his omnipotence, nor his omniscience; but we must speak of this weak man among sinners, of his manger and his cross. If we are to deal with the deity of Christ, we must speak of his weakness.” Elsewhere in this context he writes “The Church gazes always only at the humiliated Christ . . .” [Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center (New York 1978), pp. 104, 113.] This denies biblical Christianity and presents us with a Christ that is nothing but a useless and shadowy figment of human philosophy.

The question of Bonhoeffer’s theology is – unlike that of Bunyan’s, Whitefield’s, Moody’s, Wesley’s, or Schaeffer’s – very obscure and problematical. There is a lot of doubt about what he actually believed, which would not be the case if he had stood forthrightly on the Scriptures, which he did not.

I don’t know which biography of Bonhoeffer you are reading, it is a fascinating historical period, but if it doesn’t discuss his theology in depth and only gives vague platitudes about what a brave man and what a great prophet he was, and what a wonderful family he came from, I would read further.

Here is a link to someone that should be given more attention, a pastor who – unlike Bonhoeffer – openly refused to accept the Gestapo’s authority over if and where he preached, publicly defied their orders, and was sent to Buchenwald where he died.

Anyway, I hope you will give some thought to what Bonhoeffer actually believed, a question that is often overlooked. If you have any interest in unhealthy modern theology, you might look at (a) Richard Weikart, “Metaxas’s Counterfeit Bonhoeffer: An Evangelical Critique,” Author’s homepage, http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/metaxas.htm.

And also (b-c) Weikart, “So Many Different Dietrich Bonhoeffers,” Trinity Journal 32 NS (2011): 69-81, and “Scripture and Myth in Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” Fides et Historia 25 (1993): 12-25, both at http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/

My instinctive reaction was to disagree with your interpretation (but I qualify that with the fact that I am just now beginning to read about the man). It struck me that Jesus also did not burst forth on the scene and like a loud gong confront the average citizen of their sinful ways.
In order to have lasting influence, he taught disciples to deliver His teachings well after He was gone. He also did not want to attract attention to Himself to avoid curtailing his ministry and influence until the time had arrived to come out more bodly against the spritual leaders of the church. Because in both cases, you see the eventuality of where that proclamation took them. So, one needs to influence where you can to have a lasting effect (via teaching others who come after you) as well as, the longsuffering of the smaller advances of influence where you can within the right circles being ever mindful to not draw too much attention to yourself until your ministry is in full bloom and your mission has been accomplished.