Nazism, Christianity, and Fundamentalists

[Darth Wong]

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.

Actually, the Native Americans had democracy before the European invaders came. The Europeans actually picked up the idea off the natives! Did you know that "caucus" is an Iroquois word, and that the Iroquois had a system of democratic representation and recall, separate leaders for war and peace, etc?

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.

Nonsense. Technological advancements would have led to contact sooner or later. The only question is how violent, intolerant, and downright evil the "explorers" would be at the time.

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.

Russia has historically been a defender, not an aggressor. Japan's military build-up was caused by their contact with European military aggression and techniques. Neither of these examples buttresses your implicit argument that Europe has been good for the world at large.

[Colonel Olrik]

Nonsense. Technological advancements would have led to contact sooner or later. The only question is how violent, intolerant, and downright evil the "explorers" would be at the time.

That's true enough. I put my arguments completely disregarding the morality of the actions. But I point out that there are places where contact with more advanced tecnhologies has been made and still the people live pretty much like thousands of years ago.

Russia has historically been a defender, not an aggressor. Japan's military build-up was caused by their contact with European military aggression and techniques. Neither of these examples buttresses your implicit argument that Europe has been good for the world at large.

Didn't want to mean that. Europe was only good for Europe. In practice, entire nations were destroyed and replaced by our own.
I merely point out that advanced technological societies like our own are not forced to happen. If Europe hadn't gain a decisive military advantage, and, for example, the arabs had won the battle for europe, then it's not that obvious that we would have an advanced society today.

[kheegster]

If Europe hadn't gain a decisive military advantage, and, for example, the arabs had won the battle for europe, then it's not that obvious that we would have an advanced society today.

If I remember my history correctly, the Renaissance was precipitated by the influx of influences from Islamic culture, via Moorish Spain. From what I read, I'd rather be living in Moorish culture than medieval Europe...

[Colonel Olrik]

If I remember my history correctly, the Renaissance was precipitated by the influx of influences from Islamic culture, via Moorish Spain. From what I read, I'd rather be living in Moorish culture than medieval Europe...

Only partially, there were also other factors, as the impact of a rising comercial trade, which led to new classes with power. And you're right, I'd also prefer to live in moorish culture than medieval Europe. However, the renaissance did happen in Europe, and that was because of several circumnstances that could never have happened. And once it happened, then it could have been (still can be) stopped. And if it didn't happen, then it's not fateful that it should happen somewhere else.

[His Divine Shadow]

If the Norsemen were right, you're going to Hell because you're not a Viking warrior. So what?

Well, the norse faith is the one true faith for one thing, you must all bow down and pay tribute to Odin and his son Thor, and go forth and pillage and burn!

Go my Warriors, go and spread the message through the world and carve a path of blood in the name of the Vikings!

[lgot]

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

Heh, Good. What would be the world without brazil ? No brazilians!

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.

This does not change they did not needed the western influence to make it happen and Japan for example, when the Restauration happened the religion had just simbolic participation in the leadership.

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.

Brazil large territory is due the portuguese colonization, since they did not repescted the Tortesilias Deal (sp ?) and occupied the spanish portion exactly to claim it later. Also Brazil had in the 16th and 17th century to defend the territory in the north against Holand and in the southest against France, for example. When the USA expasion happened due the USA's action not England's for example.

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.

You should not resent, You are not Portugal or Europe. You are a portuguese. Governament do those things, not the individual. Even under "democracy".
I mean that Portugal introduced the the concept of centralized govern since they brought here the monarchy. But for example, brazil first parlament was closed by the King, D.Pedro I (D.Pedro VI there I think) and he was the abossolute monarch. Then there is a regency period until his son,D.Pedro II got the crowd, he was actually a good governant but still abssolute. The republic was called in 1888 and a parlament called, by militar take over and only years later "democracy returned". Brazil was liberal but not good.

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.

its very relative this. No one can say this is a better society than what would turn to be and for example, China did not allowed the western to control them and have developed enough by themselves.
Of course there would not be Brazil without portugal, but there would be something, which could be better or worse.

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.

but you gave credits for europe to end World Wars, which are only the result of imperialism of Europe,USA and Japan. All the credits are lost for their starts.
Plus, Japan would never do a World War, but only a pacific one and was very minor in the World War starter, which is linked toGermany-Italy-England-France struggle to control and the non-decisive end of the first WW.
Russia is part of europe and I do not see the difference, Russia or England overun ? That would make what, we speak Russian more than English, but have yet be a colony.
There is no credit there to any of them and their overruns for control

[C.S.Strowbridge]

If Europe hadn't gain a decisive military advantage, and, for example, the arabs had won the battle for europe, then it's not that obvious that we would have an advanced society today.

If I remember my history correctly, the Renaissance was precipitated by the influx of influences from Islamic culture, via Moorish Spain. From what I read, I'd rather be living in Moorish culture than medieval Europe...

This might be true, but I'd rather be living in Europe now than in any Arabic country.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

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

Heh, Good. What would be the world without brazil ? No brazilians!

And Germany would rule the Football world!

[Darth Yoshi]

This might be true, but I'd rather be living in Europe now than in any Arabic country.

True, but ony because Europeans went in and started taking over, and the Zionists started picking fights with the Palestinians.

[Coyote]

Caveat on the idea that China did not have anyone worthy to fight: a few hundred thousand Mongols might have another opinion...

I've always liked Pascal's wager, but I see a lot of people who jump to the conclusion that a person who believes in God is automatically an intolerant, hellfire-and-brimstone breathing bastard. I disagree. A lot of people calmly go about believing in God and the ethics behind things like the Ten Commandments and for the most part really don't interfere with the lives of others.

I've always thought that there is a God, and that doesn't meant that I have to exclude others (other believers or non-believers) from the human race. And again, dispense with that notion that if a person believes in God, then they also swallow Creationism and Adam and Eve yadda yadda like a bloody robot. And that consarn 'smiting' stuff, sheesh...

I see the evidence of evolution, of continental drift and extinctions past, and I just figure that, IMO, maybe it was God that created the tight little ball of matter; that 'he' exploded it out of curiosity or for kicks or to make something great. Then 'he' kicked back to watch and maybe occassionally swirled some gas and dust to see what would happen or where it seemed like a good idea. How about a comet strike here or there, see what bubbles up? And a great time was had by all.

Adam and Eve? Hey, the Bible is metaphor, written at a time when metaphor was probably more common. You can't explain this stuff to people who, recently, believed in Re and the sun-barge. They don't want to hear monkey tales. So-- figuratively speaking-- "Adam and Eve" are the allegories for the first truly evolved humans in contemporary form.

And for all we know, tomorrow morning something could be discovered that has us all looking like idiots. An ape dressed like Re stepping out of a sun-barge might do it.

But in closing, I'll give one official Jewish perspective-- the rigteous people of all nations are going to the kingdom of heaven. Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, yeah, evem pagans and athiests and so on. Doesn't matter if you have a club card or not. There's some tolerance that doesn't manifest itself often...

Just keep an open mind an an even keel. A believer is not always a demagogue; and an athiest is not always corrupted...

[Darth Wong]

I've always liked Pascal's wager, but I see a lot of people who jump to the conclusion that a person who believes in God is automatically an intolerant, hellfire-and-brimstone breathing bastard. I disagree. A lot of people calmly go about believing in God and the ethics behind things like the Ten Commandments and for the most part really don't interfere with the lives of others.

True. But you exaggerate; how many people actually say that, and if you challenge them on some statement that could be construed that way, how many people will actually maintain that instead of clarifying in such a manner that it becomes clear they did NOT mean that?

I have taken great pains to point out that it's possible to be a good person while being Christian. I have also taken great pains to point out that the Bible is not a "Good Book", unless you discard great swathes of it. Most of the people here are much more careful about insulting all Christians than a typical Christian BBS would be about insulting all atheists. I think you're being over-sensitive, perhaps because you're not accustomed to being on the other side of the fence.

[Coyote]

Darth, that's a point I had not considered, about being on the other side of the fence. But I've never logged on to any Christian BBS's although I'd guess that your interpretation of them may well be true, for your other statement-- that many profess to be tolerant and open minded but are not when pressed-- unfortunately seems to be true. But then, a person who sets up a BBS and maintains it, and those that frequent it, tend to be very vocal, motivated people who have opinions about things. Our own case it point... so I'd expect the folks running a Christian BBS to be quite opinionated, perhaps more so than that 'run of the mill' Christians?

Just today I saw a bumper sticker (ahhh, bumper-sticker morality) that said "If it ain't King James, IT AIN'T BIBLE!" so yeah, there are a lot of folks who take it all wayyy too literally.

But I suppose, from your own POV, there's only so many times that you can endure flaming e-mails from fundies who've checked out your site and gone apeshit about what a heathen you are or worse, they sniffly and somberly inform you that 'Deity brand-X still loves you and I'll pray for your soul (so be grateful?)'. And fundies that show up here are probably looking for a confrontation-- some of that Crusading Spirit lives on, long after the Church officially abandoned penitential warfare. Sigh.

While I think that many believers out there pay attention to the idea of 'love your neighbor' and 'do unto others, etc,' it is still a sort of shiver-me-timbers sort of reaction I get when I hear someone jump into a conversation with, "well, in dah Buy-Buhhlll, it sez thet..."

[Skelron]

I agree with you on religion, and creation, about how God started the process and then let it all happen. On Genesis, we have simple proof that it is not the dictated, this is how it happens, word of God. It starts Twice. Notice how we have God making the world and all it's creatures, including mankind. Then We have Adam made, and God making all the Animals and having them name him. What genesis is, as you say is a mataphor, written during the Exile in Babylon, it was the last book of the Old testament to be written. (an Irony there I think) It follows closly Babylonian beliefs, but alters them. Here we have God, I.E Yahwah Creating the sun, Moon and stars, something worshipped by the Babylonians, coincidence I don't think so. We also have a change in the Jewish faith occuring previously God was worshipped only in Isreal, the Promised land at the Temple. After this through the Jewish leaders are in exile, the Temple destroyed and God cannot be worshipped. (Think of the Song, 'By the waters of Babylon') With Genesis Worship of God could occur anywhere as he was everywhere, not just Isreal. (Added to this was the fact that it changed another belief from a belief in many God's with yours being the supior too your homeland to a belief in one universal God. Strangely enough Hercule's the TV show, is very close to the truth on anciant religious beliefs, although I'm sure it's an accident. (Notice how every region has it's own God, who is seperate to another regions God, even if they do the same Job!)

[Coyote]

Heh, Good. What would be the world without brazil ? No brazilians!

And Germany would rule the Football world!

Curb thy tongue! No Brazilians? And just where, pray tell, would we get our supply of golden-hued babes in thong bikinis? Think these things through before making such sweeping statements!

[Nick]

While I think that many believers out there pay attention to the idea of 'love your neighbor' and 'do unto others, etc,' it is still a sort of shiver-me-timbers sort of reaction I get when I hear someone jump into a conversation with, "well, in dah Buy-Buhhlll, it sez thet..."

I think I like this Coyote fellow

It is kind of amusing though - it doesn't seem to matter where intelligent people fall on the atheism/deism/theism spectrum, they're all agreed on two points:

1. It's an interesting topic to discuss
2. The dogmatic fundies of whatever stripe are no help to anybody

It's the domgatic fundamentalism which is the problem, not the beliefs (of course, certain belief system tend to encourage dogmatic fundamentalism, which is when the beliefs themselves can become a problem. . .)

[RayCav of ASVS]

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.

Actually, the Native Americans had democracy before the European invaders came. The Europeans actually picked up the idea off the natives! Did you know that "caucus" is an Iroquois word, and that the Iroquois had a system of democratic representation and recall, separate leaders for war and peace, etc?

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.

Nonsense. Technological advancements would have led to contact sooner or later. The only question is how violent, intolerant, and downright evil the "explorers" would be at the time.

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.

Russia has historically been a defender, not an aggressor. Japan's military build-up was caused by their contact with European military aggression and techniques. Neither of these examples buttresses your implicit argument that Europe has been good for the world at large.

All quite true, and I just want to add that the Iriquouis were instrumental towards the founding of the House of Burgesses, if I'm not mistaken.

[Coyote]

Y'know, I spent most of my time in Boise hangin' around the local Methodist group at one of the colleges, and they were super tolerant. We had Wiccans showing up, lesbians, and one girl who was researching into Hinduism and Buddhism. The minister loved the synergy, the mix of people was sure to prompt endless theological discussions and debates (as opposed to arguments). The minister (her name is Liz) felt that Jesus was all about not judging people and we bantered about people as diverse as Mohammed to Martin Luther King, Jr. and myriad others. I've kinda held every religious group to those standards since then. While I am heartened to say that I have met many who meet this standard, I am dismayed to reveal that I have met so many others who fall into that 'other' category.

These folks weren't afraid to attack the hard questions-- the historical basis for Jesus was a favorite topic, and we went for months about who this guy really was. We went after it like a Descartes excersize-- we acknowledged that on or about year 1 of the Common Era there was a physical dude named Jesus and from there, what can we prove? We examined Rousseau's argument that religion is primarily useful as a tool for social order (someone may mock the laws of man, but will obey a law they think is Divine). Liz had the Rabbi come and explain Judaism, the local Imam of the Islamic community here and all the others churches and beliefs. Oddly enough, people got rancorous only when the Mormon issue came up-- odd!

But since then, in my own fiction (I may set up a website sometime to share my 'blogs') I made sure to address the spiritualist feelings of characters-- it seems to be a fundamental need for the sapient psyche to look into 'higher philosophical meaning'. Usually it is a form of religion or some other ritual or mysticism, even a political philosophy attracts its 'religious-like' devotees.

But yeah, belief is okay on its own, maybe even cool or fascinating, but the dogma stuff... oy! Like baking a delicious chocolate cake and then icing it with glazed yak spit.

[Spoonist]

->Coyote
"We went after it like a Descartes excersize-- we acknowledged that on or about year 1 of the Common Era there was a physical dude named Jesus and from there, what can we prove?"

Actually, Jesus wasn't an uncommon name in Betlehem at the time. So there where a lot of Jesus's. The problem being that people doing historical research seems to confuse all historical instances of a jesus with the one described in the bible.
Most historical 'evidence' provided on the existance of the jesus are from after the fact.

So it's a question of wether you believe or not. If you believe then of course those historical references are for the Jesus. If you don't then of course those historical references only recounted what had been retold to them by the cultists.

->Wong
Yes during the 17th&18th century it was europes turn to screw the world. So what? The only difference to other conquests where the scale and that we are still living in the aftermath of the effects. We could mention Aztec, Mongol, Chinese etc conquests in the centuries before.
Is your gripe only because western people usually have a naïve image of how these conquests really happened or is it specific anti the european conquest. If it is the latter please explain why the euros where worse than other conquests before them.

(I'm not stating that I contradict your views, I just don't get your point of view.)[/i]

[lgot]

Actually, Wong never claimed that Europeans are worse or better in their conquest.
The only thing that caused argument here is that people claimed they are good to the conquered nations. Which is not and neither means that other nations would be better.

[Coyote]

Jesus ("Yeshu" in the original Hebrew) was a very common bame back then; oddly enough it does not show up ion Jewish naming traditions anymore

Another thing to remember is that Messianic types were also very popular at the time, there were hundreds of people wandering about claiming ot be the "Messiah", so again, how many of these stories got compiled into one? An interesting theory.

But one of the most important things to bear in mind was the words of my friend Nahum in Jerusalem. He works for the Misrad Mevakrim/Tiyyurim (Tourist Ministry) and said about the typical pilgrim visit to the Via Delorosa in Jerusalem--

"Did Jesus really go to these exact streets, do these exact things at these exact places? We can never know for sure, for there is no way to know 'exactly' where his feet touched the ground at any given moment. Maybe he was on the next street-- but the thing is, he was around here somewhere, and when you are here now, you think about him, the things he stood for and said, and in the long run, that is what makes the difference."

It's the idea, not the dogmatic hair-splitting....

[Spoonist]

-->Igot
Ahh, I should learn to read the whole thread right

-->Coyote
True.
But it is the dogmatic hairsplitting which I find so fun to discuss...

[lgot]

[quote]Jesus ("Yeshu" in the original Hebrew) was a very common bame back then; oddly enough it does not show up ion Jewish naming traditions anymore

quote]

its not odd to think that Jesus is the name of the dude they wrote a lot of books about and created a religion that drifted away from the jewish religion, so the name lost a lot of popularity among the hebrews.
The fact that his name is no more used just shows prove of the religion in his name, not of his real existence. (Funny enough, you know the bandit Barrabas - sp? - the zelot that Pilatus put to be choosen by the public with Jesus ? I saw once a teory around his first name being Jesus as well, and they are both the same individual, but the gospel showed that little history to show the division between the real prophet, a revolutionary and the later "Jesus of faith", that would return from death from the teachings and fundation of the church in his name... *shrugs* (This is just a curiosity, not what i think off. There is another topic for it)