Nazism, Christianity, and Fundamentalists

[lgot]

Mr. Bean:

It however contains over 200 Lines specficly devoted to the ordering of the extermination of non-christian people, Its in both the NEW(Mark, Relvations, Romans) and Old Testmates(Pretty much every book)

You seem to lost the point that talked about the fact that the NT is much less violent than the OT. You even listed OT happenings.
Those books are written by different people, with different ideas, they are not the same book as people like to claim.
And since i do not believe in god, i know the reasons to the change in the nt come from the fact the new christians lived under a unbeatable roman domination (therefore why to use violence), suffered the great loss in the 60's when Jerusalem was destroyed which was enough to discourage any movement of violent revolution. So the best method to grow up was "tolerance" or "showing the other face" which is the conversion. The NT stands as less violent than the OT.

What you fail to relise Igot is like the Isreialists of old HILTER was following the bible TO THE LETTER
He did EXACTLY what the Bible commands be done to un-beilivers and preachers of other faiths, Naturaly several dozen people each year in the US do the exact same thing. Its called a Hate crime...

^^ Hitler did what every tyrant did to get hold of political power. There is nothing to do with the bible which is a rather confusing teaching about what to do. Hitler used the bible was excuse as he used the arianism, the proletary movements, the social darwinism, the fight against comunism, all that.
But if you say the Catholic Church over there is to blame because they liked his lies and allowed him do it, helping him to do as he pleases, then you are right. They are to blame for working with him. As much we should blame for example Swiss and their banks who helped him to steal and hold the escaping of many jews.

Let me flip it up and around to try and force a new prespective on you

You do not understand. I never said hitler was right, much less the bible. I said that the notion that Hitler was bad because he was some kind of religious fundamentalist is wrong. He is not like the Iran or Afeghans leaders (expcet in the fact they are all wrong).
And the notion that the Catholic church is the cause of the fall of the roman empire is wrong as well.
So bringing a moral question to me have no relation with those points.

The Catholic Church was not officially formed until after the fall of Rome. I do agree that the Catholic Church is not exactly the holiest of institutions. I disagree with almost all of their practices and the Pope himself is more a political figure than a religious one, and the Papacy has been responsible for numerous atrocities.

Well, for one the Catholic church was formed before the fall and accept as religion already by Constantine. Bby that time they had already dozens of popes...But its irrelevant. I mean the Catholic church is in this very spirit a roman institution, its burocracy for example come from there. That is what i meant by not being a cause of the fall, but a syntom of the transformation that already happned.
And of course, the catholic church is the first to toss Jesus in the fire, as Dostoievisky so well pointed in Brother Karamazov. [/code]

[weemadando]

Actually popes, bishops and vicars back in the days of the tetrarchy were merely administrative positions within the empire. The church later adopted those terms. And not until AFTER Constantine.

[lgot]

Actually popes, bishops and vicars back in the days of the tetrarchy were merely administrative positions within the empire. The church later adopted those terms. And not until AFTER Constantine.

So, you agree that the catholic church institution was a rip off from the Roman Empire and already was alive in the Roman Empire ?

Of course I can be mistaken, since the Catholic Church put in her list of popes the early leaders of the church, but of course the naming can be different even because it was only in the 10 or 11 th century that it got the final regulamentations about the use of Pope title.
If I am mistaken about this detail, sorry then.

[Darth Wong]

You seem to lost the point that talked about the fact that the NT is much less violent than the OT. You even listed OT happenings.

True, but in the book of Matthew, Jesus says that he did not come to change one word of the Law. This means that the intolerant laws of the OT are still applicable to the NT (unless one chooses to disregard that statement, which many Christians do).

He even blasted the "hypocrites" for claiming to follow the law but not executing children who swear at their parents, as if it's a BAD thing to let such children live. I believe Mr. Bean mentioned that a while ago. The New Testament is a somewhat schizophrenic piece; it cannot decide whether it is laying out a new faith or reaffirming the old one.

Those books are written by different people, with different ideas, they are not the same book as people like to claim.

Obviously not, since all of the "Biblical prophecy" geeks fall mysteriously silent when asked why the OT fails to predict such a hugely important event as the Jews becoming Roman vassals shortly before the Messiah comes

Hitler did what every tyrant did to get hold of political power. There is nothing to do with the bible which is a rather confusing teaching about what to do. Hitler used the bible was excuse as he used the arianism, the proletary movements, the social darwinism, the fight against comunism, all that.

He also claimed that only white people were created by God in his image, while all of the other races had evolved from animals. This was his justification for his racism, and his particular hatred of Jews is a Catholic tradition.

But if you say the Catholic Church over there is to blame because they liked his lies and allowed him do it, helping him to do as he pleases, then you are right. They are to blame for working with him. As much we should blame for example Swiss and their banks who helped him to steal and hold the escaping of many jews.

They were negligent, but Hitler's social leanings were born in Vienna, from the many "Christian Social" anti-Semite political movements there.

You do not understand. I never said hitler was right, much less the bible. I said that the notion that Hitler was bad because he was some kind of religious fundamentalist is wrong. He is not like the Iran or Afeghans leaders (expcet in the fact they are all wrong).

He's bad because he's cruel and heartless, but he was also a religious fundamentalist and used his beliefs to justify his actions, unless you figure Mein Kampf was a completely dishonest manipulation piece (in which he foolishly spilled his whole plan).

[weemadando]

The catholic church hasn't been original for 2 millenia.

[lgot]

True, but in the book of Matthew, Jesus says that he did not come to change one word of the Law. This means that the intolerant laws of the OT are still applicable to the NT (unless one chooses to disregard that statement, which many Christians do).

He even blasted the "hypocrites" for claiming to follow the law but not executing children who swear at their parents, as if it's a BAD thing to let such children live. I believe Mr. Bean mentioned that a while ago. The New Testament is a somewhat schizophrenic piece; it cannot decide whether it is laying out a new faith or reaffirming the old one.

The Matthew book is actually the only part of the NT written to the hebrews who supported the reform of christ not the new religion, so much more linked to the OT than the others. But even so, its still much less violent. In the NT we do not have the god who command a group of ragdressed people to spoil the other group of ragbetterdressed people.
That is why the NT is schizophrenic ( i would say that the OT is as well) because it acually shows the evolution to a reform to a new faith.

Now, I know the hypocrisy of those who follow a law in the OT and forget they follow a god like all other gods, vengenceful, violent, intolerant. But that was not the point addressed.

Obviously not, since all of the "Biblical prophecy" geeks fall mysteriously silent when asked why the OT fails to predict such a hugely important event as the Jews becoming Roman vassals shortly before the Messiah comes

oh, no. I am sure if we think of daniel...after all daniel was jew...got in the lions dens...romans used lions in their games with gladiators...so the lions are rome...and daniel the captive jews. Here, i think they runned out of imagination

He also claimed that only white people were created by God in his image, while all of the other races had evolved from animals. This was his justification for his racism, and his particular hatred of Jews is a Catholic tradition.

Do i need to say that is a great example actually of his manipulations ? Its not a religious inssue, since the bible does not say that and would never use the "evolve" world. He used here what he found out.
I do not say he is not racist because the creation he had with influences of the racism of the catholics for jews, but i am only pointing that when he had the power he left aside many of his discuss. I bet - which is not a great evidence - he would forget his hatred for jews if it was the jews who would give him power.
He also hunted down latines, in minor number, but that have no religious reason.

[/quote]He's bad because he's cruel and heartless, but he was also a religious fundamentalist and used his beliefs to justify his actions, unless you figure Mein Kampf was a completely dishonest manipulation piece (in which he foolishly spilled his whole plan).

it was a manipulation piece, but not dishonest. I keep saying that Hitler was a fundamentalist when that was of his interest. He used stuffs like astrology, the nordic religion when it was of his interest, which was not a trait of the fundamentalist.
I would say that Hitler was schizophrenic as well due his huge duality.
Its very different again from the Iran Aiatola Komehine (sp?) which used the religion excuse everytime, never tracking off this.

[Coyote]

The biggest tragedy of all is, indeed, the spiral of hatred perpetuated in the MidEast by the three religions spawned there that are supposed to be more or less of one mind about things. Jesus tried to upgrade the Hebrew faith, and (according to Hebrew point of view) ended up getting mistaken for the Messiah prophesied in the Torah (what Christians call the Old Testament, which for Jews is the only book of the Bible).

By 622 CE we have Mohommed, who decides that whle the Christians had the right idea with reforming Judaism, they went too far with the whole mistaken identity aspect, and it was time to set things right. He revealed the Qur'an, and at first the followers of the will of God (Allah) were to face Jerusalem to pray but after the Hijrah he faced towards Mecca. But all three are in agreement about the origins.

And the sickest joke of all (and the saddest) is the fallout from the Muslims and the Jews. For centuries the two got along well, while the Jews were never totally citizens neither were the Christians or others, and they had to pay a special tax for their non-Islamic status. In fact, one of the most famous philosophers of all, Maimonades, was known as Maimun ibn-Maimun, and he was a Jew in Islamic Spain, who preferred to flee with the Muslims from the re-conquest rather than remain to face Crusader 'tolerance'. He later went to Cairo where he worked as an advisor to Salah-Udeen, better known as Saladin.

The way they treat each other today is the worst of corruptions, for this violence is a family argument of the last couple hundred years, and from the studies I took it has mostly to do with the importation of European-style statism and nationalist philosophies into the area rather. Nationalism was an alien ideology to the area and most of the Jews that came to Israel were European refugees with very European concepts of Manifest Destiny and the like. I dated two different girls in Israel, one Moroccan in Beer-Sheva and one a Persian in Tel-Aviv, both agreed that before the Europeans came the Eastern Jews and the Arab Muslims got along well and that the Europeans had to convince and cajole the Eastern Jews to fight their neighbors. Thier parents and grandparents to this day get sniffly and lament the lost friendship.

Now both sides are locked in this nationalistic and increasingly religious hatred, and first we need to get rid of the two old dinosaurs Sharon and Arafat. Even then it will be forty years before we see any real cooperation, and there will at best be grudging trade along a tense border of two states... In the last few decades Islam has been forcibly moulded into a very intolerant and hateful image, and that is a bad enough injustice without the counter-radicalization of Judaism to make it worse...

[Darth Yoshi]

Huh. Which is why I view history as how Europe fucked up the world.

[Colonel Olrik]

Huh. Which is why I view history as how Europe fucked up the world.

Uh? We created countries like the U.S, Canada, Australia and Brazil.
In my opinion, the world would be much more dull without them

Allright, Africa was a failure, but that is also partially their own fault. Just look at Zimbabwe

[Coyote]

On the positive side, Europe DID spawn some of the most innovative thoughts and advances in science, and had a pioneering spirit that the great civilizations of the Chinese, Indians, and others lacked. But, when one is playing with great things, one has the opportunity to screw up on a grand scale, as well...

But one other caveat is that while most Americans would identify themselves at least nominally as Christians (indeed, I guess most Westerners would) and the majority of Christians would say that they are Protestant, it seems to me that most of the Christian philosophy in the US is actually of the Calvinist stream rather than the direct influence of Martin Luther.

Martin Luther was the only Protestant leader of any stature that I can recall right now (except maybe a few of the modern day demagogues) that was really anti-Semitic. Calvinist thought was pretty much 'live andlet live' and the impression I get of the Founding Fathers of the US, they were mostly Calvinist-Deists in perspective. At the time, social tolerance had not advanced to the point where they could rationally consider the plights of slaves, Indians, or women, but at the time they were quite progressive with the idea of free commoner men from any walk of life holding office and power.

Things aren't ALL bad...

[Darth Wong]

Huh. Which is why I view history as how Europe fucked up the world.

Uh? We created countries like the U.S, Canada, Australia and Brazil. In my opinion, the world would be much more dull without them

Actually, most history books tell us that these land masses already existed long before the Europeans "created" them, and they were populated by tens of millions of natives.

The Europeans didn't "create" the US, Canada, Australia, and Brazil; they murdered the existing occupants of the US, Canada, and Brazil so that they could put their settlements down, and they dumped their convicts on an unsuspecting aboriginal population in Australia.

[weemadando]

Huh. Which is why I view history as how Europe fucked up the world.

Uh? We created countries like the U.S, Canada, Australia and Brazil.

Exactly, you fucked up the world.

[Nick]

Huh. Which is why I view history as how Europe fucked up the world.

Uh? We created countries like the U.S, Canada, Australia and Brazil.

Exactly, you fucked up the world.

Random side note, there's a great book called "Guns, Germs and Steel".

It's a fairly sizable read addressing the question "So, why was it that Europe ended up in a position to fuck over pretty much anybody they wanted?"

And, here's the impressive part: it actually makes sense (general gist is that the Europeans had advantages in terms of crops and domesticable animals, and the fragmented terrain kept them at war with each other, thus ensuring their rapid technological progress in the arts of war, whereas the Chinese conquered the other end of the continent, and didn't really have anyone to fight with for a good long while). Very, very, cool.

[Nick]

So, if I'm wrong, I'll cease to exist. If I'm right, I live forever in eternal bliss. If you're right, you'll cease to exist. If you're wrong, you'll burn in a flaming abyss forever.

Think about that for a while.

Why, so nice of you to trot out such a novel question. I believe it so novel, that it actually has a name.

The quandary you pose is called Pascal's Wager. Its fallacy lies in two areas:

1. It assumes God doesn't care about motives
This, at least, is somewhat consistent, so long as you believe God is a narcissistic amoral asshole. However, you seem to believe God is a nice guy, so I suspect your God may be somewhat dubious about an individual who does good with the sole motive of getting into heaven 'just in case God happens to be real'.

2. It assumes the choice is between YOUR religion, and atheism.
And that just isn't true. There are plenty of other religions out there offering pie in the sky if you follow them, and some penalty if you do not. Generally speaking, they are all mutually incompatible.

To borrow a quote from someone's sig:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I merely believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other religions, then you will understand why I dismiss yours."

[Darth Wong]

So, if I'm wrong, I'll cease to exist.

You will also waste $1000 or more per year every year for the rest of your life at the collection plate for nothing, you will waste 3000-4000 hours over the next 40 years sitting in church listening to people talk about their nonexistent deity, and you will be upholding a falsehood that has caused countless wars and persecutions over the last 2000 years.

If I'm right, I live forever in eternal bliss. If you're right, you'll cease to exist. If you're wrong, you'll burn in a flaming abyss forever.

If the Muslims are right, we're both going to Hell. If the Hindus are right, you're coming back as an earthworm. If the Norsemen were right, you're going to Hell because you're not a Viking warrior. So what?

Think about that for a while.

As Nick mentioned, this is one of the oldest arguments in the book. It's also a fine example of the "false dilemma fallacy".

[HemlockGrey]

Why, so nice of you to trot out such a novel question. I believe it so novel, that it actually has a name .

The quandary you pose is called Pascal's Wager. Its fallacy lies in two areas:

1. It assumes God doesn't care about motives
This, at least, is somewhat consistent, so long as you believe God is a narcissistic amoral asshole. However, you seem to believe God is a nice guy, so I suspect your God may be somewhat dubious about an individual who does good with the sole motive of getting into heaven 'just in case God happens to be real'.

2. It assumes the choice is between YOUR religion, and atheism.
And that just isn't true. There are plenty of other religions out there offering pie in the sky if you follow them, and some penalty if you do not. Generally speaking, they are all mutually incompatible.

To borrow a quote from someone's sig:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I merely believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other religions, then you will understand why I dismiss yours."

I wasn't being serious and I wasn't presenting it as honest evidence. Sheesh.

You will also waste $1000 or more per year every year for the rest of your life at the collection plate for nothing , you will waste 3000-4000 hours over the next 40 years sitting in church listening to people talk about their nonexistent deity, and you will be upholding a falsehood that has caused countless wars and persecutions over the last 2000 years.

Unlikely, since I don't go to church.

Futhermore, the idea of owning land has caused countless wars and persecutions since history began. Do you propose that we stop owning land?


Fact is, you're not going to convince me, and there's not a chance in hell that I'm going to convince you.

[Darth Wong]

Fact is, you're not going to convince me, and there's not a chance in hell that I'm going to convince you.

I didn't expect to. I was just pointing out several reasons why Pascal's wager does not make sense. It's a false dilemma fallacy and it presumes that there is no downside whatsoever for the faith, which is not true at all.

[Darth Wong]

BTW:

I wasn't being serious and I wasn't presenting it as honest evidence. Sheesh.

Then why did you bother posting it at all? It's not as if it was funny.

Futhermore, the idea of owning land has caused countless wars and persecutions since history began. Do you propose that we stop owning land?

Territorialism is part of our nature. If we don't own it individually, then nations, tribes, or states will own it (even the non-territorial native Americans still had their territories). You cannot liken that to religion, which is wholly voluntary and serves no objective purpose other than perpetuate itself.

[HemlockGrey]

Then why did you bother posting it at all? It's not as if it was funny.

I considered it amusing.

Territorialism is part of our nature. If we don't own it individually, then nations, tribes, or states will own it (even the non-territorial native Americans still had their territories). You cannot liken that to religion, which is wholly voluntary and serves no objective purpose other than perpetuate itself.

Only if you don't believe in it.

[Darth Wong]

Territorialism is part of our nature. If we don't own it individually, then nations, tribes, or states will own it (even the non-territorial native Americans still had their territories). You cannot liken that to religion, which is wholly voluntary and serves no objective purpose other than perpetuate itself.

Only if you don't believe in it.

Look up "objective" in a dictionary, Cyril.

[HemlockGrey]

0_o

You're right...that statement's a little odd. Dunno what I was thinking.

[Colonel Olrik]

The Europeans didn't "create" the US, Canada, Australia, and Brazil; they murdered the existing occupants of the US, Canada, and Brazil so that they could put their settlements down, and they dumped their convicts on an unsuspecting aboriginal population in Australia.

Of course your right, Lord Wong. I just want to point out that in Brazil it was a different situation. The locals were not so heavily attacked as in the U.S, partially because of the different conditions (they live mainly on dense forests), partially because of different policies followed by the colonial power. Portugal didn't have neither the men power nor a population big enough to assimilate a vast region.
There were plenty attempts to "reeducate them" by religious groups, but never an extermination as in the U.S.
And the locals didn't have a long struggle against the portuguese, like the indians did in the U.S.

But disregarding the morality of the invasion, I think the world would be a worse place without the U.S or Canada or Australia as they are now.

This nice things we apreciate in modern society, like democracy and separation of church and state had its roots in the Western thinking, Europe/North America. Without a reserve outside Europe, the outcome of the world wars would have been different and those ideals possibly dissapear.
Even if that didn't happen, then European society would still be alone in a world that didn't embrace it's ideas.
In the long therm, that could be it's undoing.

[lgot]

I am sorry, but I beg to disagree...

Of course your right, Lord Wong. I just want to point out that in Brazil it was a different situation. The locals were not so heavily attacked as in the U.S, partially because of the different conditions (they live mainly on dense forests),

Not true. The natives are heavily attacked and used as slaves. But only because their lack of skill in agriculture in comparassion of the africans and the odd notion that they are "Pure" not souless like the africans helped them to avoid the life of slavery.
Other than that, the different tribes are either killed by the help of the other tribes, enslaved anyways or assimilated (which is a violence in the end anyways).
And Brazil , even then, was not made of dense florest. The initial colonization (brazil northest and southest) are basically formed by the caatinga ( a formation with great and open spaces) or the tropical formation (mata-atlantica), which have little trees and happened close to the ocean.
That is unlikely in the Amazon, which is a dense florest and not heavily ocuppied until today, where some natives tribes still dwell.

partially because of different policies followed by the colonial power. Portugal didn't have neither the men power nor a population big enough to assimilate a vast region.

Just that Portugal assimilated a vast region. They asimilated all the Brazil already in the begining of the 18th century easily. ANd Brazil is about the same size of USA today. Portugal assimlated a territory much superior of that british did in America, much faster (Brazil dimensions only had 2 significant changes over the century, when Uruguay turned independent and when Acre was added to Brazil).

There were plenty attempts to "reeducate them" by religious groups, but never an extermination as in the U.S.
And the locals didn't have a long struggle against the portuguese, like the indians did in the U.S.

The Jesuits tryied this during the 17 and 18 century but the fall of the ordem finished this and they only attempted that in a limited region of Brazil (South and Southest). The non-conflict is only a partial true in the occupation of the litoral, since the natives avoided the europeans (Which caused the locomotion of tribes to other's tribes territories and wars because of that)
Plus its a well know fact that Brazil space occupation of its interior happened mainly due a group of adventures called "Bandeirantes" in the 18 century with the intention to kill more dangrous tribes, capture slaves and take of them territory. Its not like the USA just because it was a local and private iniciatiive not a governament iniative.

But disregarding the morality of the invasion, I think the world would be a worse place without the U.S or Canada or Australia as they are now.

And Not because of Brazil also ?

This nice things we apreciate in modern society, like democracy and separation of church and state had its roots in the Western thinking, Europe/North America.

It is funny, But the separation of church and state happened in the japan and china as well, without the need of europeans.
Or the fact that natives in brazil or australia did not even this union even.
And democracy ? This odd thing that sometimes happens here, when the USA or Europe does not interfere to make happens otherwise ? After all, USA is main responsable for the latin-americans dictators in the second middle of 20 century and Spain and Portugal introduced the concept here when they made the territory their colony.

Without a reserve outside Europe, the outcome of the world wars would have been different and those ideals possibly dissapear.

Without Europe there would not even be World Wars (One by the way, was very limited to the europe). Its funny how you congrat Europe for not letting something they did be a huge mistake.

Its very relative, all societies have good and bad things, but as an Empire Europe only got beneficts to themselves and they still do it. So are the Americans. Probally if they dont South America and Africa would use their strength as well over the weakers. But that does not make them good or give any justification to anyone to thank them to be a colony.

[Cpt_Frank]

Huh. Which is why I view history as how Europe fucked up the world.

Uh? We created countries like the U.S, Canada, Australia and Brazil. In my opinion, the world would be much more dull without them

Actually, most history books tell us that these land masses already existed long before the Europeans "created" them, and they were populated by tens of millions of natives.

The Europeans didn't "create" the US, Canada, Australia, and Brazil; they murdered the existing occupants of the US, Canada, and Brazil so that they could put their settlements down, and they dumped their convicts on an unsuspecting aboriginal population in Australia.

I guess what the Colonel wanted to say is that Europe is more or less the birthplace of that what we today call 'western culture' which is shared by Europe, Australia and northern America since the population there today consists of a large portion of the descendants of immigrated europeans.

The way that was accomplished..... well

[Colonel Olrik]

And Not because of Brazil also ?

Brazil also. Sorry, I forgot to put it in the list.

It is funny, But the separation of church and state happened in the japan and china as well, without the need of europeans.

In Japan only happened due to their defeat in the second world war. War, btw, that they ALSO started. Not only the Europeans are warmongers, you know. In China they simply abolished church and have yet to know democracy.

Just that Portugal assimilated a vast region. They asimilated all the Brazil already in the begining of the 18th century easily. ANd Brazil is about the same size of USA today. Portugal assimlated a territory much superior of that british did in America,

Of course. By assimilation I meant the actual domination [as in cities and farms] of all the territory, and the movement of huge amounts of people to colonize it. I think that didn't happen like in the U.S. But, of course, you should know better than me.

And democracy ? This odd thing that sometimes happens here, when the USA or Europe does not interfere to make happens otherwise ? After all, USA is main responsable for the latin-americans dictators in the second middle of 20 century and Spain and Portugal introduced the concept here when they made the territory their colony.

Hei! I resent that! It was in great part due to Brazil that the absolute power of monarchy ended in Portugal! You guys had a true parliement at the same time we did.
And, once again, regardless of morals, if the territory wasn't made a colony Brazil the country simply wouldn't exist. It's ludicrous saying that it would evolve to a modern society. If left alone, the continent would still be entirely populated by natives living their ancestral lifestyle. Like the several tribes that still exist in Brazil and Africa.

Without Europe there would not even be World Wars (One by the way, was very limited to the europe). Its funny how you congrat Europe for not letting something they did be a huge mistake.

I'm not congratulating Europe. But several countries [like Japan before ww2 and Russia ] would have the power to completely overrun western societies if it weren't for the U.S. And the reserve in the U.S allowed germany and the others to be defeated. Sorry, but it's a question of survival.