Christians tell Hindus "not in my house"

[cool hand]

EZ9To30Hz7A

[Heath Ledger]

Way to go you posted a dead video..

[baseline bum]

Christians intolerant? You don't say?

[Phenomanul]

Christians intolerant? You don't say?

Hindus have killed 100s of Christians over the past few weeks... but don't let that change your own "intolerant" tune.... :rolleyes

[baseline bum]

Hindus have killed 100s of Christians over the past few weeks... but don't let that change your own "intolerant" tune.... :rolleyes

Yeah, Christians have never killed people of other religions for answering the god question differently.

[boutons_]

any religion makes you hate and kill people

[cool hand]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Capilla_real.jpg

[Phenomanul]

Yeah, Christians have never killed people of other religions for answering the god question differently.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

And those "Christians" that you describe with your statement, do not Christendom define. Christians are to bear the fruit of the Spirit. They should embody attributes of love, peace, kindness, forgiveness... etc...

But again, don't let that stop you and others in the anti-christian crowd from painting with broad strokes... You all are good at it.

Let me try...

Hitler, Stalin, and Kim Yong-il were/are all athiestic mass murderers (who killed in the name of their beliefs).... I guess that must mean that the atheistic 'religion' is defined by hate and murder .... :rolleyes

Geesssh... the intolerance of some people around here is ridiculously ignorant...

[Phenomanul]

any religion makes you hate and kill people

Including yours.

[romad_20]

Including yours.


Mine doesn't!! Woo Hoo!

[Spurminator]

any religion makes you hate and kill people


So THAT'S why I have this insatiable addiction to going on random shooting sprees in crowded places. And all this time I just thought it was because I'm an angry sociopath...

[baseline bum]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

And those "Christians" that you describe with your statement, do not Christendom define. Christians are to bear the fruit of the Spirit. They should embody attributes of love, peace, kindness, forgiveness... etc...

But again, don't let that stop you and others in the anti-christian crowd from painting with broad strokes... You all are good at it.

Let me try...

Hitler, Stalin, and Kim Yong-il were/are all athiestic mass murderers (who killed in the name of their beliefs).... I guess that must mean that the atheistic 'religion' is defined by hate and murder .... :rolleyes

Geesssh... the intolerance of some people around here is ridiculously ignorant...

Nice argument. You're the one who painted Hindus as murderers in your post to justify the Christians interrupting dude's prayer.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Nice argument. You're the one who painted Hindus as murderers in your post to justify the Christians interrupting dude's prayer.if he's posting an instance that actually happened "a few weeks ago" then how is that "painting" exactly?

[Phenomanul]

Nice argument. You're the one who painted Hindus as murderers in your post to justify the Christians interrupting dude's prayer.

I'm stating two wrongs don't make a right...

Your initial comment, on the other hand, cast all Christianity in negative light.

My initial comment presented the context of what is going on in India this very moment. Most Americans aren't even aware this is going on. Churches have been burned down, pastors dragged out and killed, whole villages wiped out. Yes, intolerance is one of humanities' most despicable attributes. To suggest, however, that this trait is tied only to religion is fool-hardy, reprehensible and an outright lie.

[Phenomanul]

I'm stating that two wrongs don't make a right...

Your initial comment, on the other hand, cast all Christianity in negative light.

My initial comment presented the context of what is going on in India this very moment. Most Americans aren't even aware this is going on. Churches have been burned down, pastors dragged out and killed, whole villages wiped out. Yes, intolerance is one of humanities' most despicable attributes. To suggest, however, that this trait is tied only to religion is fool-hardy, reprehensible and an outright lie.

[Warlord23]

Every religion has its extremists, the zealots who bring shame upon the larger community. The majority of any religion's followers view their religion as an aid to mental peace, instilling good values in children, etc. But the 10% or so who are loony are the ones who end up causing bad blood between religions.

Christianity is no different. Religion is a private practice and should remain as such. The fact that institutions (like the Church) make it a public/social practice, and encourage people to apply religion to areas where it has no business being applied, such as politics, education, etc is the root of the problem.

Christianity (or Hinduism or Islam) is not the problem. It is the Church (or temples or mosques) and their leaders who need to be reformed.

[RandomGuy]

Hindus have killed 100s of Christians over the past few weeks... but don't let that change your own "intolerant" tune.... :rolleyes


Christian mob

No side is left blameless in this conflict. After the initial attacks on church institutions and the shops and homes of Christian families, Christian mobs responded in kind.


A Hindu woman walks through her destroyed village

In the village of Gadapur, Hindu families, standing amid the charred rubble of their homes, told me how a mob of tribal Christians had descended on them, forcing them to flee into the forest, before destroying every shop and dwelling in the village.

For those now living in makeshift tents, or in the ruins of their old homes, aid from the state government has been limited: a few tents, some plastic sheeting, food and cooking utensils.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7214053.stm

I could find no source claiming "hundreds" of Christians have been killed by Hindus.

Thousands of Christians have been made homeless, however, and there have been reports of deaths on both sides.

The fighting appearst to be over the murder of an anti-christian Hindu demagogue, apparently by Maoist guerillas. The guerillas deny the killing and many of his followers blame Christian attackers, due to the number of death threats against the demogogue by Christians.

Not exactly a shining moment for either religion.

[Anti.Hero]

If a holy war were to ever break out, I think I would lean to the Christians. I'm not sure why, perhaps because I was raised Lutheran (am now Agnostic)...but these christian bashers really annoy the fuck out of me.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, intolerance is one of humanities' most despicable attributes. To suggest, however, that this trait is tied only to religion is fool-hardy, reprehensible and an outright lie.

"tied only to religion" is false.

"tied often to religion" not so much.

"tied more often than Phenomanul would probably be comfortable admitting to" ...?

[baseline bum]

Not exactly a shining moment for either religion.

What shining moments does religion have? 9/11? Black slavery? The war in Iraq? The crusades?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

What shining moments does religion have? 9/11? Black slavery? The war in Iraq? The crusades?
The Resurrection.

[RandomGuy]

What shining moments does religion have? 9/11? Black slavery? The war in Iraq? The crusades?

http://www.ccusa.org/info.asp (christian charities list)
Baptist Children's Home Ministries

If life was bad for Ian and his six-month-old baby sister before...now it was even worse. With their physically abusive father and mother in jail the children went to live with their Grandmother. But Grandmother was also a drug user and often left Ian to fend for himself and his tiny baby sister.

A foster family was found for the baby, but Ian was sent to live with an aunt. Sadly at the first court hearing his aunt told the judge, "I don't want him," leaving Ian confused, scared, and alone.

Today, Ian runs around the playroom hugging a stuffed puppy given to him at the Baptist Children's Home Ministry's Emergency Shelter. Ian now has a smile on his face and a new sparkle in his eyes. He has finally come to a place where he is safe and cared for. Ian is beginning to heal.

Watching this little boy, it is hard to imagine anyone not wanting him. But the sad reality is that he is just one of the many unwanted children who need care. Your gift to Baptist Children's Home Ministry can give neglected and abused children, who deserve ... more than anyone else... a new beginning


Children's Emergency Relief Teams
http://ads.givedirect.org/uploads/ad_30-0045949.jpg


Fighting For His Life Alipio is a Machiguenga infant we found clinging to his mother and fighting for his life, deep in Peru's Amazon Jungle. He had a severe case of Yellow Fever, was malnourished, dehydrated, and infested with intestinal worms. Our doctors said, "Without immediate hospital care Alipio will die," (photo on the right). Alipio was one of three children found in this condition, yet Alipio's mother Paulina was the only mother brave enough to leave the village of Yomibato with her son. SHE TRUSTED CERT WITH THE LIFE OF HER CHILD. To bring mom and son out of this highly restricted area required special government permission. After a three day boat ride downriver to the jungle town of Puerto Maldonado, a CERT representative and local pastor contacted government officials and began the "red tape" process. As only the Lord can do, permission and permits were quickly granted. Then the pastor had to make the long trip back upriver to Yomibato to get Alipio and his mother. On the fourth day just before getting to Yomibato, a propeller on the motor broke. The next day, after retrieving Alipio and Paulina the spare prop broke. "Propless", it took seven days of floating and paddling downriver to Puerto Maldonado where medical attention awaited. Alipio was immediately hospitalized where he received life-saving care for the next two weeks. Thanks be to God and partners like you, Alipio is back home in Yomibato now É doing what healthy little Machiguenga boys do.

----------------------------------

http://www.muslimhands.org/en/gb/ (muslim charity)

Qurbani 2008
In 2007, the MH Worldwide Qurbani Service benefited hundreds of thousands of people. This year, with your support, we want to reach even more people and share the joy this coming Eid al-Adha insha'Allah.

Performing your qurbani through Muslim Hands couldn't be simpler. Your sacrifice can be performed in one of over 40 countries and is carried out within three days of Eid with fresh meat distributed to the poor and needy, including widows and orphans.
Sponsor an orphan (http://www.muslimhands.org/en/gb/our_work/sponsorship_schemes/orphan_sponsorship/)

http://www.egyptgiftshop.com/islamic_charity_organizations.html

-----------------------------


http://www.sewainternational.com/ (hindu charity)


SEWA INTERNATIONAL, UK appeals
the benevolent to help these unfortunate victims. Your support will help reduce the sufferings of
these people in the flood affected state of Bihar, living in the remote areas. Sewa International
will help the flood victims to bring back life to normal in the state of Bihar.

Sewa International to Provide Relief to Hurricane Ike Effected
in Appeals
Date: Sept. 16th, 2008


As Hurricane Ike passed through four southern states, it left the devastating destruction. The storm as large as the state of Texas left its affect from Louisiana to Texas. The hurricane killed 34 in US and several thousands were evacuated and taking shelter.

Sewa International USA extends its sympathy to victims of Hurricane Ike and condolences to those whose family member lost life. Sewa International USA Houston chapter is working with various organizations to provide relief to people living in shelters in Houston. And hope to actively support relief activity. Particularly we are concerned about the International students dislocated due to loss of power and access to food.

---------------------------------

http://sikhcharity.blogspot.com/ (sikh charity)

UK Sikh in 4,000km charity walk (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4052807.stm)


-----------------------------------


I will stop there. I think I have made my point. If anyone doubts that I could fill hundreds of posts with similar bits, I can keep going.

[Tully365]

Religious folks are just like everybody else-- some are very good, some are very bad, and many are somewhere in between.

[Creepn]

Actually some good came out of the Crusades. In fact, it saved western civilization.

[Bartleby]

"What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea."

- Mohandas Gandhi

[RandomGuy]

Humans will always find ways of dividing themselves from each other and of feeling superior to each other, whether it is black/white/brown/yellow, baptist/methodist, protestant/catholic, christian/muslim/hindu, village A/village B, Spurs/Mavericks (HA!).

Each of us holds within ourselves the good or evil that humans are capable of, and that is what makes us human. It is not religion itself that is evil any more than a hammer is evil. It is what you do with your faith.

I think that God and the universe speaks to us often, but sadly, some are too busy to really listen. In the end, in a hundred years I will be just as dead as the most vile, evil person alive today. I would hope that in some way, my life's actions reduce the world's misery, and that the world is better for my having been in it. I also hope there are enough people who choose to act to do the same that on balance things get better over time.

[baseline bum]

http://ads.givedirect.org/uploads/ad_30-0045949.jpg

That's hot.

[johnsmith]

That's hot.

So you are all about criticizing religion but when someone points out 5 of the 5,000,000,000 good things that come out of religion, you have nothing but a shitty joke?

[baseline bum]

So you are all about criticizing religion but when someone points out 5 of the 5,000,000,000 good things that come out of religion, you have nothing but a shitty joke?

Pretty hard to see how any of that is on par with the black eyes on religion I mentioned above.

[Phenomanul]

"tied only to religion" is false.

"tied often to religion" not so much.

"tied more often than Phenomanul would probably be comfortable admitting to"...?

What does this have to do with my admission of anything? I have no vested stake in defending the actions of those who profess to be christians and respond by acting un-Christlike. They will be held accountable for their own actions. That people continue to gauge an entire belief system, however, based solely on the actions of those who don't even represent its ideals is beyond my control.

I clearly stated that intolerance (and the actions it breeds) is a despicable human trait.

Those who wish to tie it to religion, while being blind to everthing else are deceiving only themselves... it reflects their own personal bias.

[clambake]

are these the demons?

[Phenomanul]

are these the demons?

How else am I to respond to your constant cynicism, ridicule and scorn? Naively? Please... You're old enough where you know exactly what you're doing. You need to grow up.

Anyways to answer your "question"... Without acceptance of Christ's redemptive act of forgiveness you will meet those demons soon enough...

As harsh as that may sound. It's still completely up to you.

[clambake]

How else am I to respond to your constant cynicism, ridicule and scorn? Naively? Please... You're old enough where you know exactly what you're doing. You need to grow up.

Anyways to answer your "question"... Without acceptance of Christ's redemptive act of forgiveness you will meet those demons soon enough...

As harsh as that may sound. It's still completely up to you.

:lmao

this is about you, not me.

are people who kill in the name of religion demons?

[Phenomanul]

Pretty hard to see how any of that is on par with the black eyes on religion I mentioned above.

Hitler: over 6 millioin Jews dead... started a war that resulted in over 70 million human casualties.

Stalin: over 40 million dead... imposed a regime that turned Russia upside down.

The list goes on and on for people that waged wars over something other than "religion"....

Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Attila the Hun, Mao, Kim Yong-il

[Phenomanul]

:lmao

this is about you, not me.

are people who kill in the name of religion demons?

No. People are responsible for their own actions.

[clambake]

you could have thrown bush in there while you're at it.

[clambake]

No. People are responsible for their own actions.

you came into this thread shouting tit for tat.

are you saying that people who kill in the name of religion has nothing to do with religion?

[Spurminator]

Another even-handed and rational discussion on religion for the SpursTalk Political Forum.

Well done, everybody.

[The Reckoning]

hitler prayed before major battles

anyway, the Church kept Europe from caving in on itself during the dark ages and established the first schools

[clambake]

tough question huh?

[Phenomanul]

you came into this thread shouting tit for tat.

are you saying that people who kill in the name of religion has nothing to do with religion?

Conveniently you've ignored the fact that I stated on three separate occasions that "two wrongs don't make a right"... I'm not defending the actions of anyone.

Your bias is clear...

Like I said earlier.... grow up.

[clambake]

just won't answer that question, huh?

[Phenomanul]

hitler prayed before major battles

anyway, the Church kept Europe from caving in on itself during the dark ages and established the first schools

Alongside the satanic cult that put him in power.... but don't tell clambake... he doesn't believe in demons.

[Phenomanul]

just won't answer that question, huh?

People who kill in the name of religion don't typically embody what their religion represents...

[clambake]

People who kill in the name of religion don't typically embody what their religion represents...

just can't do it, huh?

[Phenomanul]

just can't do it, huh?

Your reading comprehension is not my problem.

[baseline bum]

People who kill in the name of religion don't typically embody what their religion represents...

What about people who think the bible is true? The bible that tells them to kill people who follow gods other than Yahweh?

[Creepn]

I thought Hitler was a Christian.

[clambake]

phenom bailed without answering.

must be buried in scripture.

[Bigzax]

bright peach just isn't his color...:wakeup

[RandomGuy]

That's hot.

If all you have in response is a rather shameful and lame attempt at humor to avoid admitting that you might be just slightly wrong or inaccurate when you imply that religion is nothing but evil, I understand.

No one likes to admit that they might be wrong, just don't expect anyone to really buy your arguments.

People will see you for what you are when you say things like this, and if what you say here isn't something you could stand up in front of your friends and family and say in person, then I can only hope that someday you might look inside and grow a little beyond such things.

[RandomGuy]

hitler prayed before major battles


Alongside the satanic cult that put him in power.... but don't tell clambake... he doesn't believe in demons.

(shakes head)

I guess it is easier to believe that Hitler et al. were somehow satanists rather than people who actually believed in Christ and thought of themselves as Christians.

An odd duality given that you have already made the logical distinction between a religion's worth versus people that make up that religion.

You are comfortable, and honest enough to say "those people say they are Christians, but do some very un-Christ-like" things", so why prevaricate and try to claim the leaders of Nazi germany were really not Christians?

I would say that you prefer to believe otherwise, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Phenomanul]

(shakes head)

I guess it is easier to believe that Hitler et al. were somehow satanists rather than people who actually believed in Christ and thought of themselves as Christians.

An odd duality given that you have already made the logical distinction between a religion's worth versus people that make up that religion.

You are comfortable, and honest enough to say "those people say they are Christians, but do some very un-Christ-like" things", so why prevaricate and try to claim the leaders of Nazi germany were really not Christians?

I would say that you prefer to believe otherwise, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

There is more than enough evidence to show that Hitler was involved in several satanic rituals... Much of it surfaced after several Nazi files were made public, 'declassified' in 2001.

You can't serve two masters....

[RandomGuy]

are you saying that people who kill in the name of religion has nothing to do with religion?


Conveniently you've ignored the fact that I stated on three separate occasions that "two wrongs don't make a right"... I'm not defending the actions of anyone.

Your bias is clear...

Like I said earlier.... grow up.

It is a fair question, Phenomanul.

Just as fairly: I think you have answered it already.

To my understanding you have answered:

Yes, it does have something to do with religion in a sense that it is done supposedly in the name of religion. Further, the core of most religions do not endorse wanton murder, and that the people who commit such things do not do so because their religion requires it, they do so because they are fallible human beings doing things that are actually against the religion they profess.

I would agree with that statement.

[I Love Me Some Me]

I'm not even sure what the debate is about here, but the resolution is pretty simple.

You either believe that people who do things in the name of anything, do so because they are acting in accordance with what that thing tells them to do.

Or, you believe they do so not in accordance with what that thing tells them to do.

[RandomGuy]

There is more than enough evidence to show that Hitler was involved in several satanic rituals... Much of it surfaced after several Nazi files were made public, 'declassified' in 2001.

You can't serve two masters....

I am not sure there is "more than enough" evidence.

I do not know exactly what evidence you are referring to, but I think that your confirmation bias is probably leading you to assign more weight to it than is reasonable.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not even sure what the debate is about here, but the resolution is pretty simple.

You either believe that people who do things in the name of anything, do so because they are acting in accordance with what that thing tells them to do.

Or, you believe they do so not in accordance with what that thing tells them to do.

You say that, but all I hear is:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

to which I reply:

"uh, what?"


Could you try that again? I really am not entirely sure what you are trying to get at.

[RandomGuy]

Anyhoo, time to get to work.

Peace out, my ninjas.

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/ninja-12.jpg

[I Love Me Some Me]

You say that, but all I hear is:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

to which I reply:

"uh, what?"


Could you try that again? I really am not entirely sure what you are trying to get at.


:lol

I guess the question is, in your understanding of Christ's teachings, do you believe the 'Christians' who committed these horrible offenses did so in correct response to Christ's teachings?

[baseline bum]

If all you have in response is a rather shameful and lame attempt at humor to avoid admitting that you might be just slightly wrong or inaccurate when you imply that religion is nothing but evil, I understand.

No one likes to admit that they might be wrong, just don't expect anyone to really buy your arguments.

People will see you for what you are when you say things like this, and if what you say here isn't something you could stand up in front of your friends and family and say in person, then I can only hope that someday you might look inside and grow a little beyond such things.

Not quite at the same level as the atrocities committed in the name of religion, is it? Nursing a few sick babies doesn't quite make up for the crusades, brainwashing black slaves, 9/11, and all the other great things religion has brought us. So get off your high horse.

[SAtoDallas]

Not quite at the same level as the atrocities committed in the name of religion, is it? Nursing a few sick babies doesn't quite make up for the crusades, brainwashing black slaves, 9/11, and all the other great things religion has brought us. So get off your high horse.

So I guess things like schools and hospitals which were founded by the religious don't count either?

By the way if it weren't for the crusades you'd be bowing to allah right now.

[baseline bum]

So I guess things like schools and hospitals which were founded by the religious don't count either?

By the way if it weren't for the crusades you'd be bowing to allah right now.

If we're going to talk hypotheticals, Islam is nowhere near as hostile without having Muslims slaughtered by Christians in the crusades. If it wasn't for the crusades you would be bowing to Allah, not me. (of course, making your assumption that the crusades kept Europe from being Muslim).

[Phenomanul]

Not quite at the same level as the atrocities committed in the name of religion, is it? Nursing a few sick babies doesn't quite make up for the crusades, brainwashing black slaves, 9/11, and all the other great things religion has brought us. So get off your high horse.

Random Guy is on a high horse???

You're the one preferentially judging equally atrocious acts of human history as 'unequal'...

[ChumpDumper]

By the way if it weren't for the crusades you'd be bowing to allah right now.I would probably credit that more to the Reconquista in Spain and Jan Sobieski's leadership in the Battle of Vienna, neither of which are generally considered crusades.

[Phenomanul]

Not quite at the same level as the atrocities committed in the name of religion, is it? Nursing a few sick babies doesn't quite make up for the crusades, brainwashing black slaves, 9/11, and all the other great things religion has brought us. So get off your high horse.

Did you ever hear of William Wilberforce? Several prominent Christian leaders opposed the practice of slavery. Greed and prejudice led to slavery not religion. Your bias is unrelenting. Revising and ignoring history to suit your arguments is counterproductive to your stance.

For that matter, on a related topic, most Christian leaders within Nazi Germany were opposed to the Nazi party, its tactics, and its beliefs. Many were killed for it.

[clambake]

the bible says slavery is cool.

[Phenomanul]

I am not sure there is "more than enough" evidence.

I do not know exactly what evidence you are referring to, but I think that your confirmation bias is probably leading you to assign more weight to it than is reasonable.

Read up on Hitler, Hess and Himnler...

Or rent "The History of the Occult Third Reich" on DVD. It aired on the History channel 2 years ago (?) as a 5 part mini-series.

Like I said, or rather, like Jesus said, "You can't serve two masters."

The fact that Hitler professed to be "christian" was greatly countered by his actions.

Let's see what we know about Hitler...

--- He ordered the murder of millions.
--- He engaged in pedofilia and homosexuality.
--- His obsession with eastern occult religions (and hence why a swastika was chosen as a Nazi party symbol) don't particularly validate his alleged christianity.
--- His anti-semitism, as many would hate to admit, is not biblically founded.
--- His own 'messianic' ambitions were blasphemy.

Look... even satan recognizes Jesus as KING of KINGS and LORD of LORDS... but that doesn't make him a christian.

[Phenomanul]

the bible says slavery is cool.

So how many slaves did Jesus own?

[clambake]

So how many slaves did Jesus own?

the bible says slavery is cool.

[ChumpDumper]

Did the bible specifically say Jesus owned no slaves?

Just curious.

[baseline bum]

Did you ever hear of William Wilberforce? Several prominent Christian leaders opposed the practice of slavery. Greed and prejudice led to slavery not religion. Your bias is unrelenting. Revising and ignoring history to suit your arguments is counterproductive to your stance.

For that matter, on a related topic, most Christian leaders within Nazi Germany were opposed to the Nazi party, its tactics, and its beliefs. Many were killed for it.

Please. The masters filled their slaves' heads with Christian heaven fantasies about how their toil and suffering was good and would make their spot in the afterlife that much better.

[8ft.tall.tejano]

Not quite at the same level as the atrocities committed in the name of religion, is it? Nursing a few sick babies doesn't quite make up for the crusades, brainwashing black slaves, 9/11, and all the other great things religion has brought us. So get off your high horse.

besides...aren't churches SUPPOSED to do those sort of things?
like help the sick, disabled, homeless and needy?
not just take ten percent of our income & turn a profit...
i think that all churches in the US that don't perform some sort of community service should lose their tax-exempt status...
taking in a income w/o putting anything back in the community is just robbery and we shouldn't allow it...
would we allow an oil company(or any business) to exist w/tax credits, if they didn't bring jobs or charity to the community?...
and the fact that those extremist in the vid are elected officials is just scary...
what's next, a christian version of shariah?
it shows disrespect to one of the foundations of this nation being founded, freedom of religion...

[RandomGuy]

Not quite at the same level as the atrocities committed in the name of religion, is it? Nursing a few sick babies doesn't quite make up for the crusades, brainwashing black slaves, 9/11, and all the other great things religion has brought us. So get off your high horse.

"nursing a few sick babies..."

You say that as if there is something that would, in your mind, make up for all of that.

How about nursing tens of millions of sick babies? hundreds of millions?

Since we are playing the moral equivalancy game, we need to know the rules, of course.

The rules are, by your own implication:

1) We can assume religion is good if we can name the things it has done that are good, and they outweigh somehow the bad things.

2) We can assume religion is bad if we can name the things it has done that are evil, and they outweigh somehow the good things.

You cannot logically have #2 without logically having #1. If you want to admit that your position isn't logical, say so now before we begin, so I don't have to waste my time on someone who admits they are being irrational.

Do you accept that these are the rules, and say that your position is a logical one?

[RandomGuy]

Did the bible specifically say Jesus owned no slaves?

Just curious.

The bible is, to my knowledge, silent on that issue. I am by far not an expert though.

Given what I understand about the place/time and probable economic status of Jesus, it would be a safe assumption to guess that he did own one or two. It may be that references to his slaves were purged during the many re-writes and edits of the stories in the bible in the first millenium and a half after his death.

[Phenomanul]

Please. The masters filled their slaves' heads with Christian heaven fantasies about how their toil and suffering was good and would make their spot in the afterlife that much better.

So you would rather focus on the 'fake' christians... got ya.

I'm sure you've never lied before.

[2centsworth]

It is a fair question, Phenomanul.

Just as fairly: I think you have answered it already.

To my understanding you have answered:

Yes, it does have something to do with religion in a sense that it is done supposedly in the name of religion. Further, the core of most religions do not endorse wanton murder, and that the people who commit such things do not do so because their religion requires it, they do so because they are fallible human beings doing things that are actually against the religion they profess.

I would agree with that statement.

a very good response:toast

[Phenomanul]

The bible is, to my knowledge, silent on that issue. I am by far not an expert though.

Given what I understand about the place/time and probable economic status of Jesus, it would be a safe assumption to guess that he did own one or two. It may be that references to his slaves were purged during the many re-writes and edits of the stories in the bible in the first millenium and a half after his death.

Why would that be the safe assumption??? Nothing in the context of his life would even remotely suggest He or his family owed any slaves... But why even bother with searching the scriptures for clues if you would rather believe that they were 'altered' to begin with... you'd end up nowhere with that approach.

[Phenomanul]

Did the bible specifically say Jesus owned no slaves?

Just curious.

The bible never specifically mentioned that Jesus had 10 toes.... I guess it's safe to assume that He had 12.

Great logic CD... your cynicism never ceases to amaze me. :downspin:

[ChumpDumper]

The bible never specifically mentioned that Jesus had 10 toes.... I guess it's safe to assume that He had 12.

Great logic CD... your cynicism never ceases to amaze me. :downspin:I merely asked a question.

Your capacity to be a douche never ceases to amaze me. :downspin:

[Spurminator]

How many millions of people have been killed in the name of Government?

Many.

Ergo, Government is bad.

[The Reckoning]

Jesus had disciples who took care of his needs. i dont think it would have been practical for him to own slaves.

we can thank dracula - he owned the shit out of the turks.

but i think the battle of tours really ended the chance of europe being under islam.

[kwhitegocubs]

Yup the Moops couldn't pull through.

[Phenomanul]

I merely asked a question.

Your capacity to be a douche never ceases to amaze me. :downspin:

Right... :rolleyes "I merely asked a question"... like I'm supposed to believe you were asking that question in 'sheepish' innocence... You knew exactly what you were doing...

It was cynical logic at its best... I simply exposed the fallacy in using that argument. That's it.

Nothing personal... you just so happen to be the king of one-liners around these parts (with Oh Gee! and Mr. Peabody close behind.) Your fame precedes you.

[RandomGuy]

Read up on Hitler, Hess and Himmler...

Or rent "The History of the Occult Third Reich" on DVD. It aired on the History channel 2 years ago (?) as a 5 part mini-series.

Like I said, or rather, like Jesus said, "You can't serve two masters."

The fact that Hitler professed to be "christian" was greatly countered by his actions.

Let's see what we know about Hitler...

--- He ordered the murder of millions.
--- He engaged in pedofilia and homosexuality.
--- His obsession with eastern occult religions (and hence why a swastika was chosen as a Nazi party symbol) don't particularly validate his alleged christianity.
--- His anti-semitism, as many would hate to admit, is not biblically founded.
--- His own 'messianic' ambitions were blasphemy.

1) I have a degree in German. You can assume that I have "read up" on modern german history. I have read Mein Kampf in the original language. Hitler criticised much of the voelkisch occultism that was in vogue at the time.

The NSDAP (german acronym for the Nazi party) drew some of the original inspiration from the Germanenorden movement, and no historian disputes that the swastika symbol was drawn directly from this movement.

But there is no credible evidence to support the assertion that Hitler was some sort of Satanist of any kind.

Hitler used some of the voelkisch romantic themes to weave into his speeches, but after coming to power ruthlessly suppressed the paganistic movements that spawned this romanticised version of nordic mythology.

Quite frankly most of the "evidence" you seem to have bought into amounts to little more than conspiracy theories that suit your confirmation bias.

There is no credible evidence that I have seen that he was either a pedophile or a homosexual. [BEGIN EDIT] Indeed, such charges are to be treated with a great deal of skepticism, as they are precisely the kinds of things that his enemies would simply make up out of thin air to discredit and villify him, as if we needed anything else to villify him with other than mass murder.[/END EDIT]

I am not going to defend him or his actions, but I won't buy into bullshit either.

The NSDAP very definitely tried to weave a sort of neo-paganistic element into German identity by working with some of aspects of volksmthyhologie, and some of the higher ups, yes including Himmler seem to have bought into astrology, but that is about as far as the evidence supports it went.

[ChumpDumper]

Right... :rolleyes "I merely asked a question"... like I'm supposed to believe you were asking that question in 'sheepish' innocence... You knew exactly what you were doing... Yes, I knew exactly what I was doing -- asking a question because I was curious about it. I didn't know if anything was said about it. If anything, I was going to follow up with questions about what he said and did about slavery, again because I simply want to know.


It was cynical logic at its best... I simply exposed the fallacy in using that argument. That's it.I made no argument whatsoever. You're being an overly defensive dumbass for no reason.


Nothing personal... you just so happen to be the king of one-liners around these parts (with Oh Gee! and Mr. Peabody close behind.) Your fame precedes you.Nothing personal...you just happen to be an asshole. So instead of leaping to the defense the Jesus when it wasn't warranted, why don't you just answer the question and let people think for themselves? Why do you have such an aversion to that? You act like you have something to hide regarding your religion.

[RandomGuy]

Why would that be the safe assumption??? Nothing in the context of his life would even remotely suggest He or his family owed any slaves... But why even bother with searching the scriptures for clues if you would rather believe that they were 'altered' to begin with... you'd end up nowhere with that approach.

Jesus, as a skilled carpenter, would have been in the upper middle class at the time, and as such would likely have had the means to own a slave or two as was common throughout the Roman Empire for anyone over a certain economic status.

I am by no means an expert on the Bible. I leave that to Extra Stout, but Roman history is something I know a bit about.

[RandomGuy]

Let's see what we know about Hitler...

--- He ordered the murder of millions.
--- He used some mythological themes in some of his speeches.
--- He was an anti-semite
--- He did have some 'messianic' ambitions.

We can surmise that he was a bit insane, and have some evidence that he was quite possibly under the influence of several drugs towards the last few years of his life.

THAT is what we KNOW about Hitler.

[ChumpDumper]

Let's see what we know about Hitler...

--- He ordered the murder of millions.
--- He used some mythological themes in some of his speeches.
--- He was an anti-semite
--- He did have some 'messianic' ambitions.

We can surmise that he was a bit insane, and have some evidence that he was quite possibly under the influence of several drugs towards the last few years of his life.

THAT is what we KNOW about Hitler.I think most of that stuff listed above garners an automatic excommunication, which is nice for busy church officials with all the normal paperwork and such. It would have been nice of them to confirm it though.

[8ft.tall.tejano]

which they never did...
besides, being an anti-semite was a prac a requirement to being catholic at the time...
even their current leader was a member of the hitler youth...
hitler had the same amount of real christian values as bush....

[Phenomanul]

Yes, I knew exactly what I was doing -- asking a question because I was curious about it. I didn't know if anything was said about it. If anything, I was going to follow up with questions about what he said and did about slavery, again because I simply want to know.

I made no argument whatsoever. You're being an overly defensive dumbass for no reason.

Well if that was really your intention... it's a first. Every other time you've engaged discussion with me such questions always rear their ugly head further down the thread...

For that I'm sorry.


Nothing personal...you just happen to be an asshole. So instead of leaping to the defense the Jesus when it wasn't warranted, why don't you just answer the question and let people think for themselves? Why do you have such an aversion to that? You act like you have something to hide regarding your religion.

Have you seen clambake's questions??? After enduring his constant scorn and cynicism who wouldn't be on the defensive?

[RandomGuy]

I think most of that stuff listed above garners an automatic excommunication, which is nice for busy church officials with all the normal paperwork and such. It would have been nice of them to confirm it though.

Yup. Hitlers links to the occult are some of the first modern conspiracy theories. It was pretty much the first "9-11 was an inside job" -type conspiracy theory, and worked precisely like the 9-11 truth sites of today, in a pre-internet form.

One or two people wrote a couple of badly-researched books riddled with logical fallacies, and others picked up on it, re-wrote the stuff, added a few unsupported claims peppered with an occasional fact taken out of context to come up with this whole "Hitler was a satanist" movement.

Substitute "websites" for "books" and "9-11 was an inside job" for "Hitler was a satanist" and you have an apt description of the pathology of a conspiracy theory.

[Phenomanul]

Jesus, as a skilled carpenter, would have been in the upper middle class at the time, and as such would likely have had the means to own a slave or two as was common throughout the Roman Empire for anyone over a certain economic status.

I am by no means an expert on the Bible. I leave that to Extra Stout, but Roman history is something I know a bit about.

Jesus had several brothers and sisters. His father died sometime between the time Jesus was 12 and before He started his ministry at 30. He was the main provider of the household, and the primary caretaker of his mother. Would he have the money for slaves? Not likely. Plus Jesus was Nazarene. Nazarenes didn't own any slaves. He was also a Rabbi, meaning he had met the qualifications of the Jewish process for priesthood. Priests didn't own slaves.

Like I said, the context is there.... If you would just read.

[ChumpDumper]

Have you seen clambake's questions??? After enduring his constant scorn and cynicism who wouldn't be on the defensive?These things always seem to boil down to simple matters of faith. If you really have it, there's not much of an argument against it and there's certainly not much reason to get upset over it.

I was really looking more into Jesus in the context of his times. Many of his teachings were downright revolutionary; I was just wondering if any of his pronouncements on slavery ran along those lines. It wouldn't surprise me or disappoint me much if they were not.

[The Reckoning]

which they never did...
besides, being an anti-semite was a prac a requirement to being catholic at the time...
even their current leader was a member of the hitler youth...
hitler had the same amount of real christian values as bush....

:rolleyes
the lutherans and other german protestant churches were incredibly anti-semitic. pope benedict was forced to be in the hitler youth - as was all of the german children. he was too young to make a conscious decision to be a nazi. the Church objected to what the nazis were doing, but the pope at that time didnt want hitler putting catholics into concentration camps.

[RandomGuy]

we can thank dracula - he owned the shit out of the turks.

but i think the battle of tours really ended the chance of europe being under islam.

Yup. Those two bits had a lot more to do with it than the Crusades.

It is sad that someone would try some vaguely moral defense of the Crusades by claiming that it "kept Europe Christian". Puh-lease. That is weak on so many levels. :rolleyes

[Phenomanul]

Yup. Hitlers links to the occult are some of the first modern conspiracy theories. It was pretty much the first "9-11 was an inside job" -type conspiracy theory, and worked precisely like the 9-11 truth sites of today, in a pre-internet form.

One or two people wrote a couple of badly-researched books riddled with logical fallacies, and others picked up on it, re-wrote the stuff, added a few unsupported claims peppered with an occasional fact taken out of context to come up with this whole "Hitler was a satanist" movement.

Substitute "websites" for "books" and "9-11 was an inside job" for "Hitler was a satanist" and you have an apt description of the pathology of a conspiracy theory.

That is such a copout analogy...

Comparing anything to the '9-11' conspiracy movement with the intent of debunking the argument is not an argument in and of itself.

Just see the DVD... it isn't even marketed by Christians... it's a documentary from the History channel.

[RandomGuy]

Jesus had several brothers and sisters. His father died sometime between the time Jesus was 12 and before He started his ministry at 30. He was the main provider of the household, and the primary caretaker of his mother. Would he have the money for slaves? Not likely. Plus Jesus was Nazarene. Nazarenes didn't own any slaves. He was also a Rabbi, meaning he had met the qualifications of the Jewish process for priesthood. Priests didn't own slaves.

Like I said, the context is there.... If you would just read.

Hmm. Fair enough.

Then I would take it back. I did not have this information, and based on this, it is reasonable to assume that he didn't own slaves.

Thank you. It is always good to learn something new.

[Extra Stout]

Religion makes for a lovely pretext for people who want to steal and to kill. They can convince themselves that rather than indulging their own selfish, evil desires, they're doing something for God.

Take away God, and they just find some other "higher cause" to rationalize their actions. See Century, 20th.

Hitler was not a Christian. He did the politician thing and used Christian rhetoric in his rise to power. His religion once in power was a strange blend of Nordic paganism and a revision of Christianity where Jesus was an Aryan anti-Semite white supremacist.

The Crusades did not save Western civilization from Islam. The Fourth Crusade made it really easy for the Ottomans eventually to conquer the Balkans because the Crusader sack of Constantinople irrevocably crippled the Byzantine Empire.

The key battles that staved off Muslim advance were: 1) Tours, 2) the Reconquista, 3) Vienna.

Saying the Crusades are the reason Muslims hate Westerners now is stretching the definition of "reason" beyond recognition. The last of the Crusades happened over 600 years ago. People who hold grudges over things that happened 600 years ago are insane.

Western civilization as we know it is saturated with Christian ideals of morality, even if the piety itself is dying out. Everything about the West, good and bad, happened in a Christian framework from about A.D. 400 until World War I. Picking out the atrocities and saying they are the only thing religion influenced or caused is just cherry-picking.

Jesus was a homeless itinerant preacher with a background in manual labor, probably stonemasonry (he's called a "carpenter," but they didn't build wooden buildings there then). He was dependent upon the hospitality of his followers. It is profoundly unlikely that he himself owned slaves.

The Old Testament specifically allows chattel slavery of foreigners. It allows indentured servanthood of Israelites until the subsequent Year of Jubilee. In the New Testament, slavery is neither vouched for nor condemned as an institution. It simply exists.

The scholarly Greek New Testament that exists today is compiled from extant manuscripts from late antiquity, i.e. the late first to mid-fifth centuries. It is not some bastardized version reflecting 1500 years of editing. The Catholic Church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries didn't fool the people by giving them a heavily revised Bible that matched their new teachings. They fooled the people by hiding the Bible from them.

Pastors that collect peoples' tithes and use them to buy million-dollar homes and Bentleys are going to burn in hell.

Yes, communities of faith are supposed to do good works. The idea of people doing organized acts of charity for people they don't know did not exist in the West until Christianity came along.

[Phenomanul]

Religion makes for a lovely pretext for people who want to steal and to kill. They can convince themselves that rather than indulging their own selfish, evil desires, they're doing something for God.

Take away God, and they just find some other "higher cause" to rationalize their actions. See Century, 20th.

Hitler was not a Christian. He did the politician thing and used Christian rhetoric in his rise to power. His religion once in power was a strange blend of Nordic paganism and a revision of Christianity where Jesus was an Aryan anti-Semite white supremacist.

The Crusades did not save Western civilization from Islam. The Fourth Crusade made it really easy for the Ottomans eventually to conquer the Balkans because the Crusader sack of Constantinople irrevocably crippled the Byzantine Empire.

The key battles that staved off Muslim advance were: 1) Tours, 2) the Reconquista, 3) Vienna.

Saying the Crusades are the reason Muslims hate Westerners now is stretching the definition of "reason" beyond recognition. The last of the Crusades happened over 600 years ago. People who hold grudges over things that happened 600 years ago are insane.

Western civilization as we know it is saturated with Christian ideals of morality, even if the piety itself is dying out. Everything about the West, good and bad, happened in a Christian framework from about A.D. 400 until World War I. Picking out the atrocities and saying they are the only thing religion influenced or caused is just cherry-picking.

Jesus was a homeless itinerant preacher with a background in manual labor, probably stonemasonry (he's called a "carpenter," but they didn't build wooden buildings there then). He was dependent upon the hospitality of his followers. It is profoundly unlikely that he himself owned slaves.

The Old Testament specifically allows chattel slavery of foreigners. It allows indentured servanthood of Israelites until the subsequent Year of Jubilee. In the New Testament, slavery is neither vouched for nor condemned as an institution. It simply exists.

The scholarly Greek New Testament that exists today is compiled from extant manuscripts from late antiquity, i.e. the late first to mid-fifth centuries. It is not some bastardized version reflecting 1500 years of editing. The Catholic Church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries didn't fool the people by giving them a heavily revised Bible that matched their new teachings. They fooled the people by hiding the Bible from them.

Pastors that collect peoples' tithes and use them to buy million-dollar homes and Bentleys are going to burn in hell.

Yes, communities of faith are supposed to do good works. The idea of people doing organized acts of charity for people they don't know did not exist in the West until Christianity came along.

Leave it to ES to summarize and address all the floating questions. I don't have your patience dude... People's stubborness frustrates me to no end...

[The Reckoning]

Take away God, and they just find some other "higher cause" to rationalize their actions. See Century, 20th.


amen. throughout history the europeans were infatuated with the idea of conquering the middle east. the greeks for glory, the romans for gold, and the crusaders for God. they just found a different excuse every time.

[ploto]

He was also a Rabbi, meaning he had met the qualifications of the Jewish process for priesthood. Priests didn't own slaves.

It is not universal Christian belief that Jesus was actually a Rabbi in the sense of having been through the process and having that title officially conferred upon him.

[Phenomanul]

Let's see what we know about Hitler...

--- He ordered the murder of millions.
--- He used some mythological themes in some of his speeches.
--- He was an anti-semite
--- He did have some 'messianic' ambitions.

We can surmise that he was a bit insane, and have some evidence that he was quite possibly under the influence of several drugs towards the last few years of his life.

THAT is what we KNOW about Hitler.

Ok... so even if I agree with this condensed list... None of Hitler's actions sprouted from his 'professed' christian belief system. Not a single one. Which is what someone implied in their rebuttal after I suggested that heinous crimes had been committed for something other than 'religion'.

[RandomGuy]

That is such a copout analogy...

Comparing anything to the '9-11' conspiracy movement with the intent of debunking the argument is not an argument in and of itself.

Just see the DVD... it isn't even marketed by Christians... it's a documentary from the History channel.

You misunderstand me.

It would be illogical to assert the following:
The "9-11 truth" movement is false. The "Hitler was a satanist" movement sounds like the "9-11 truth" movement, therefore it is false.

That is not what I said.

The "Hitler was a satanist" movement as an idea is either true or false independent of the truth of the "9-11 Truth" movement.


I said:

One or two people wrote a couple of badly-researched books riddled with logical fallacies, and others picked up on it, re-wrote the stuff, added a few unsupported claims peppered with an occasional fact taken out of context to come up with this whole "Hitler was a satanist" movement.

This is a stand-alone critique of the idea.

I did compare this method of spreading a shitty idea to that of the modern 9-11 "truth" method, and I stand by that observation.

They are both shitty ideas, unsupported by credible evidence.

That you don't like that comparison, I can understand. But please do not think that I attempted to discredit the "satanist Hitler" idea by associating it with the "truth" movement. It is a shitty idea all by itself.

[Phenomanul]

It is not universal Christian belief that Jesus was actually a Rabbi in the sense of having been through the process and having that title officially conferred upon him.

You are correct... it is generally agreed that those who were allowed to speak in synagogues needed to have substantial knowledge of the scriptures and of the law. By Jewish tradition, boys who excelled in this arena were 'pushed' into that role. They would later serve an apprenticeship role under an existing rabbi, and then after several years become rabbis themselves. Jesus met all of those requirements, but it wasn't a role he sought to fill.

[RandomGuy]

Ok... so even if I agree with this condensed list... None of Hitler's actions sprouted from his 'professed' christian belief system. Not a single one.

I would agree. Hilter's actions were pretty much wholly inconsistant with widely accepted Christian principles.

[RandomGuy]

Originally Posted by baseline bum

Not quite at the same level as the atrocities committed in the name of religion, is it? Nursing a few sick babies doesn't quite make up for the crusades, brainwashing black slaves, 9/11, and all the other great things religion has brought us. So get off your high horse.



"nursing a few sick babies..."

You say that as if there is something that would, in your mind, make up for all of that.

How about nursing tens of millions of sick babies? hundreds of millions?

Since we are playing the moral equivalancy game, we need to know the rules, of course.

The rules are, by your own implication:

1) We can assume religion is good if we can name the things it has done that are good, and they outweigh somehow the bad things.

2) We can assume religion is bad if we can name the things it has done that are evil, and they outweigh somehow the good things.

You cannot logically have #2 without logically having #1. If you want to admit that your position isn't logical, say so now before we begin, so I don't have to waste my time on someone who admits they are being irrational.

Do you accept that these are the rules, and say that your position is a logical one?

Just in case BL misses it.
I would hate to pass up a chance to play the Moral Equivalancy Game.

This oughta be fun.:p:

[Phenomanul]

You misunderstand me.

It would be illogical to assert the following:
The "9-11 truth" movement is false. The "Hitler was a satanist" movement sounds like the "9-11 truth" movement, therefore it is false.

That is not what I said.

The "Hitler was a satanist" movement as an idea is either true or false independent of the truth of the "9-11 Truth" movement.


I said:


This is a stand-alone critique of the idea.

I did compare this method of spreading a shitty idea to that of the modern 9-11 "truth" method, and I stand by that observation.

They are both shitty ideas, unsupported by credible evidence.

That you don't like that comparison, I can understand. But please do not think that I attempted to discredit the "satanist Hitler" idea by associating it with the "truth" movement. It is a shitty idea all by itself.

Look... just rent the DVD... and draw your own conclusions... You've always struck me as a person with an insatiable thirst for knowledge. It wouldn't hurt... and I don't want to misquote the documentary with sketchy memory...

http://www.amazon.com/Occult-History-Third-Reich/dp/B000784WLI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1227212362&sr=1-2

[RandomGuy]

Once again, my time is done here.

Later gators.

[clambake]

You are correct... it is generally agreed that those who were allowed to speak in synagogues needed to have substantial knowledge of the scriptures and of the law. By Jewish tradition, boys who excelled in this arena were 'pushed' into that role. They would later serve an apprenticeship role under an existing rabbi, and then after several years become rabbis themselves. Jesus met all of those requirements, but it wasn't a role he sought to fill.

see, we're not that far apart.

the entire manifestation was the creation of what men with power agreed to believe, and continue to convince others to believe. :toast

[baseline bum]

Religion makes for a lovely pretext for people who want to steal and to kill. They can convince themselves that rather than indulging their own selfish, evil desires, they're doing something for God.

Take away God, and they just find some other "higher cause" to rationalize their actions. See Century, 20th.

Hitler was not a Christian. He did the politician thing and used Christian rhetoric in his rise to power. His religion once in power was a strange blend of Nordic paganism and a revision of Christianity where Jesus was an Aryan anti-Semite white supremacist.

Religion is a particularly effective way to rationalize evil deeds because religious texts tell people to not think rationally, but to only believe. Their unshaking belief in the bible, qu'ran, or whatever other text as truth without question is then very easily projected onto their leader, who is right and unquestioned because he is doing the work of god. If a religious text should be unquestioned and it tells to kill the infidel or the abortion doctor, then the person doing it is convinced he is doing the most noble act a man can do because it's justified by the infinite wisdom in his holy book. When the holy book is filled with so many contradictions such as "Thou shalt not kill" and (roughly) "kill anyone who preaches about a different god", then an unshaking and unquestioned belief in this book as the word of god is insane.

I cannot think of any other tool as effective as religion for capturing minds and manipulating people willingly. The people's truth is nothing compared to the infinite truth of the gospel the minister preaches.

[RandomGuy]

Look... just rent the DVD... and draw your own conclusions... You've always struck me as a person with an insatiable thirst for knowledge. It wouldn't hurt... and I don't want to misquote the documentary with sketchy memory...

http://www.amazon.com/Occult-History-Third-Reich/dp/B000784WLI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1227212362&sr=1-2

S'okay, I saw parts of the documentary already when it aired.

Do a bit of digging into how the idea came about and what that documentary is based on.

Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_mysticism

Then actually go out and read the book:
The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology : The Ariosophists of Austria and Germany, 1890-1935 By Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's

This is the guy who actually studied it and did some fair work on it.

The wiki bit gets is right on:


On nine pages, the Oxford historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke here surveys the most influential books that have attempted to explain the rise of Nazism as the work of a "hidden power". That Goodrick-Clarke's book includes such an appendix is not without reason. One of the difficulties of the book's subject (the racist-occult movement of Ariosophy, a major strand of Esotericism in Germany and Austria, and its potential influences on Nazism) lies in that it can be regarded "as a topic for sensational authors in pursuit of strong sales."[3] While Goodricke-Clarke doesn't see anything more behind this than a "post-war fascination with Nazism", [4] to him it is clear that the claims made by this literature are "wholly spurious."[5]

Certainly there were some non-Christian ideas (volkisch, Germanenorderung) that fed into the Nazi mystique and the modern mythology that they attempted to create as a means of controlling the population, but it just wasn't a satanic cult.

[RandomGuy]

Ok, NOW I am done. Honest. ;)

[Creepn]

The Crusades did not save Western civilization from Islam. The Fourth Crusade made it really easy for the Ottomans eventually to conquer the Balkans because the Crusader sack of Constantinople irrevocably crippled the Byzantine Empire.


I said the crusades saved western civilzation because at that time, Christians were burning books, knowledge, and cast out philosophers and scientists. The west back then were like the equivalent of the Middle East right now.

During the crusades, Muslims re-introduced scientists and philosophers to the west. Thats how the crusades saved western civilization.

[ChumpDumper]

Look... just rent the DVD... and draw your own conclusions... You've always struck me as a person with an insatiable thirst for knowledge. It wouldn't hurt... and I don't want to misquote the documentary with sketchy memory...

http://www.amazon.com/Occult-History-Third-Reich/dp/B000784WLI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1227212362&sr=1-2OK, I watched two parts of it online and there is zero mention of Satan, just some some mishmash of crackpot eugenics and neopaganism.

[Phenomanul]

OK, I watched two parts of it online and there is zero mention of Satan, just some some mishmash of crackpot eugenics and neopaganism.

Witchcraft, neopaganism, occultism, etc... all point to satan.

The point stands however... that no matter how much, how frequent or how staunchly Hitler professed to be a christian... his actions made him anything but.

[ChumpDumper]

Witchcraft, neopaganism, occultism, etc... all point to satan.Satan points to Satan.

Had they worshipped Satan, the documentary would have said so.

It didn't.


The point stands however... that no matter how much, how frequent or how staunchly Hitler professed to be a christian... his actions made him anything but.Sure, but the point stands that he wasn't a Satan worshipper.

[Phenomanul]

Satan points to Satan.

Had they worshipped Satan, the documentary would have said so.

It didn't.

Sure, but the point stands that he wasn't a Satan worshipper.

I just gave you the biblical perspective on such actions...

People who worshipped Baal in the Old Testament, or the many Egyptian gods were condemned by GOD because they were in fact 'worshipping the prince of darkness'... aka. Satan.

Participation or affiliation with witchcraft is ultimately the same thing.

[ChumpDumper]

I just gave you the biblical perspective on such actions...I just gave you the fact that Satan worship isn't mentioned anywhere in the documentary.


People who worshipped Baal in the Old Testament, or the many Egyptian gods were condemned by GOD because they were in fact 'worshipping the prince of darkness'... aka. Satan.Great. If you believe that kind of thing, then that's what you believe.

[clambake]

your dad's act really fucked you up.

[Phenomanul]

your dad's act really fucked you up.

:rollin
Just because I don't agree with your worldview???... please... :rolleyes

"The greatest act the devil pulled off was convincing the world he didn't exist"

At least I acknowledge the fact that people are entitled to their beliefs; your narrowminded approach, however, scorns those that disagree with your worldview. How are you acting any differently from those you are criticizing?

[Phenomanul]

I just gave you the fact that Satan worship isn't mentioned anywhere in the documentary.

Great. If you believe that kind of thing, then that's what you believe.





Participation or affiliation with witchcraft is ultimately the same thing.

[Extra Stout]

I said the crusades saved western civilzation because at that time, Christians were burning books, knowledge, and cast out philosophers and scientists. The west back then were like the equivalent of the Middle East right now.

During the crusades, Muslims re-introduced scientists and philosophers to the west. Thats how the crusades saved western civilization.
Muslim infusion of knowledge into the West came through Spain and Sicily, not the Crusades.

[ChumpDumper]

Participation or affiliation with witchcraft is ultimately the same thing.If you believe it is. If you don't, it isn't.

[kwhitegocubs]

Yes, but you are expecting people to take your point of view as objective fact when it is, in fact, heavily influenced by your very strong and very conservative evangelical Christianity. Thus subjective.

Most of the people disputing your "proof of Satanic cult" claim are more empiricists or, at the very least, outside of your specific denomination/view of religion. Therefore, you can't expect them to believe the connections you make based on the Bible, much less your particular take on things that can be taken from the Bible.

I don't agree either, and think that you also take the OT way too seriously. I mean, how can you ignore the batshit craziness of the laws in the Torah!?

[Phenomanul]

If you believe it is. If you don't, it isn't.

Fair enough...

[clambake]

At least I acknowledge the fact that people are entitled to their beliefs; your narrowminded approach, however, scorns those that disagree with your worldview. How are you acting any differently from those you are criticizing?

i don't use my beliefs to interfere in people's lives. i don't try to manipulate a political party to enforce my agenda's.

and regarding the way you live your life.......it's in my sig.

[Phenomanul]

Yes, but you are expecting people to take your point of view as objective fact when it is, in fact, heavily influenced by your very strong and very conservative evangelical Christianity. Thus subjective.

Most of the people disputing your "proof of Satanic cult" claim are more empiricists or, at the very least, outside of your specific denomination/view of religion. Therefore, you can't expect them to believe the connections you make based on the Bible, much less your particular take on things that can be taken from the Bible.

I don't agree either, and think that you also take the OT way too seriously. I mean, how can you ignore the batshit craziness of the laws in the Torah!?

I never said I had proof Hitler was a Satanist... I called him one, sure.... out of my belief that all occultism draws its power from satan, and that I had seen a recent documentary which suggested he was affiliated with a secret occult society.

My main point, and one that was largely ignored out of convenience, was that "religion" was not the root of evil. Man's own lust for power and greed fuel the depravity of his desires and are ultimately the source for evil.

Hitler definitely fell in that category, so I used him as an example (funny how all the other names in that list were ignored).

Others then tried countering by suggesting that Hitler was christian... I quickly mentioned that 1) no matter what he professed to be, that his actions proved he wasn't a Christian and 2) that none of his atrocities were commited in the name of Christianity. Everything else has been semantical rollercoaster.

Ultimately my main points stand.

[kwhitegocubs]

I agree that religion is not a great evil and has brought about much good. I err on the side that it's "net" is good, but remain unsure.

I just thought the devolution of the conversation into Hitler occultism stuff was pretty bizarre.

[Phenomanul]

i don't use my beliefs to interfere in people's lives.

Proof?


i don't try to manipulate a political party to enforce my agenda's.

Proof?



and regarding the way you live your life.......it's in my sig.

:lol Your obsession is really quite pathetic... that signature of yours embodies exactly what I was referring to in my previous statement.

[clambake]

that signature is you. it required zero effort on my part. i'm fascinated with what is swimming around in your head.

your dad's act really fucked you up.

[Creepn]

Muslim infusion of knowledge into the West came through Spain and Sicily, not the Crusades.

Yeah, that happened DURING the crusades.

Wait let me be clear, they always had contact with Sicily, but the actual mass infusion of knoweldge of medicine and whatnot was a result of the crusades.

[Phenomanul]

-->
that signature is you. it required zero effort on my part. i'm fascinated with what is swimming around in your head.

your dad's act really fucked you up. <--

Intolerance

[clambake]

tell me about those demons.

[Phenomanul]

tell me about those demons.

So, I take it you didn't find proof for your bogus allegations earlier?

Slander and intolerant. Got it. :tu

[clambake]

what the fuck are you talking about now?

[Phenomanul]

what the fuck are you talking about now?

That you can't make accusations that try to present me as some nutcase, all for the sake of your argument and then not back them up.

You said,


i don't use my beliefs to interfere in people's lives.

i don't try to manipulate a political party to enforce my agenda's.

Where's your proof that I've done this? All you can show is that my worldview is different from yours...

Concerning the other.... so I believe in angels and demons... Well I hate to break it to you... but a large portion of the world also believes in them... What does that have anything to do with your beratement of my father? Oh wait, nevermind I forgot you were a slanderer.

Slanderer,
Intolerant,
Back-pedaler...

Keep it up the list is growing. :tu

[ChumpDumper]

I'd have to defer to one of the forum lawyers, but I'm pretty sure it's not slander.

[Phenomanul]

I'd have to defer to one of the forum lawyers, but I'm pretty sure it's not slander.

Lies spewed on a public forum, don't count...???

Darn. Well... he's still got that intorlerance thing going for him...

[ChumpDumper]

I believe slander is spoken.

[Phenomanul]

I believe slander is spoken.

Libel....


Always get the two mixed up...

[clambake]

That you can't make accusations that try to present me as some nutcase, all for the sake of your argument and then not back them up.
are you saying that religion doesn't influence a certain political wing?

Where's your proof that I've done this? All you can show is that my worldview is different from yours...
religion as a corporation has done this. i wasn't dropping the whole thing in your lap.

Concerning the other.... so I believe in angels and demons... Well I hate to break it to you... but a large portion of the world also believes in them...
tell me about them.

What does that have anything to do with your beratement of my father?
i should have been more specific. i apologize. i should have said that some people are more susceptible to brainwashing than others.

Oh wait, nevermind I forgot you were a slanderer.
you misunderstood.

Slanderer,
Intolerant,
Back-pedaler...

Keep it up the list is growing. :tu
aim for accuracy.

[Phenomanul]

are you saying that religion doesn't influence a certain political wing?

Apparently it also affects the other one.

Hot and cold analogy. Cold is defined by the absence of heat. Atheists are defined by an absence of spiritual beliefs, particularly a belief in GOD. having said that, partisan lines aren't exactly defined by religious affiliation.

Besides what does this have anything to do with me interfering in people's lives?


religion as a corporation has done this. i wasn't dropping the whole thing in your lap.

Sure.


tell me about them.
Angels serve Jehova.
Demons serve lucifer.

Both are organized with highly structured hierarchies...


i should have been more specific. i apologize. i should have said that some people are more susceptible to brainwashing than others.

I could revert the argument back on you, but then that would mean we'd be going around in circles...

[clambake]

Apparently it also affects the other one.

Hot and cold analogy. Cold is defined by the absence of heat. Atheists are defined by an absence of spiritual beliefs, particularly a belief in GOD. having said that, partisan lines aren't exactly defined by religious affiliation.
i know which one is hot.

Besides what does this have anything to do with me interfering in people's lives?
i'm sorry i triggered your over-reaction.

Sure.
your defensiveness can be a burden.

Angels serve Jehova.
Demons serve lucifer.

Both are organized with highly structured hierarchies...
YIKES

I could revert the argument back on you, but then that would mean we'd be going around in circles...
well.....i'm dizzy..so...

[The Reckoning]

ehhh well the Renaissance happened very soon after the crusades, and thats when the italian states really started to blossom...alot having to do with venice and the other states looting cities (Constantinople) and setting up trading outposts in the middle east. the italian cities became filthy rich, and started investing their extra money on research, art, architecture, etc.

[kwhitegocubs]

I never knew that Dante's Inferno and Paradise Lost were canonical, but apparently they are.