a very good response
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.
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.
I merely asked a question.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.
Your capacity to be a never ceases to amaze me.
How many millions of people have been killed in the name of Government?
Many.
Ergo, Government is bad.
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 out of the turks.
but i think the battle of tours really ended the chance of europe being under islam.
Yup the Moops couldn't pull through.
Right...I merely asked a question.
Your capacity to be a never ceases to amaze me."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.
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 sexual. [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 bull either.
The NSDAP very definitely tried to weave a sort of neo-paganistic element into German iden y 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.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-20-2008 at 02:44 PM. Reason: added a bit.
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.Right...
I made no argument whatsoever. You're being an overly defensive dumbass for no reason.It was cynical logic at its best... I simply exposed the fallacy in using that argument. That's it.
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.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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
Have you seen clambake's questions??? After enduring his constant scorn and cynicism who wouldn't be on the defensive?
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.
Subs ute "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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 do entary from the History channel.
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.
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 ins ution. 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 bas ized 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' hes and use them to buy million-dollar homes and Bentleys are going to burn in .
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...
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote