Thoughts from a Simple Man

[daws101]

lol! you did know the nazis were christian?

Nazi attitudes towards Christianity[edit]
A number of Nazis promoted positive Christianity, a militant, non-denominational form of Christianity which viewed Jesus as an active fighter and antisemite who opposed the institutionalized Judaism of his day,[46] they denounced the Old testament, demanded the removal of Paul from the New Testament and changed Jesus into a German war hero.[28] As a result the Confessing Church movement was started in opposition to the nazification of the Protestant churches. In 1937 all Confessing Church seminaries and teaching was banned. Dissident Protestants were forbidden to attend universities. During Hitler's dictatorship, more than 6,000 clergymen, on the charge of treasonable activity, were imprisoned or executed.[47] The same measures were taken in the occupied territories, in French Lorraine, the Nazis forbid religious youth movements, parish meetings, scout meetings, and church assets were taken. Church schools were closed, and teachers in religious institutes were dismissed. The episcopal seminary was closed, and the SA and SS desecrated churches, religious statutes and pictures. 300 clergy were expelled from the Lorraine region, monks and nuns were deported or forced to renounce their vows.[48]
The Nazi leadership made use of both Christian symbolism, indigenous Germanic pagan imagery, and ancient Roman symbolism in their propaganda. However, the use of pagan symbolism worried some Protestants.[49] Many Nazi leaders, including Adolf Hitler,[47] subscribed either to a mixture of pseudoscientific theories, particularly Social Darwinism,[50] or to mysticism and occultism, which was especially strong in the SS.[51][52] Central to both groupings was the belief in Germanic (white Nordic) racial superiority. The existence of a Ministry of Church Affairs, instituted in 1935 and headed by Hanns Kerrl, was hardly recognized by ideologists such as Alfred Rosenberg or by other political decision-makers.[53] A relative moderate, Kerrl accused dissident churchmen of failing to appreciate the Nazi doctrine of "Race, blood and soil" and gave the following explanation of the Nazi conception of "Positive Christianity", telling a group of submissive clergy in 1937:[5

Religion in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the Nazis pervert Christianity into a supporting theocracy of Naziism, and expell or execute all other religious worshipers... and this leads you to claim they were Christians?

Do you even pay attention to the idiocy you spew anymore?

DO YOU?

the nazis did exactly what christianity had been doing for the previous 1000 years.
payback's a bitch!...

 

[Boss]

the nazis did exactly what christianity had been doing for the previous 1000 years.

Not according to what you posted, they simply didn't.

 

[daws101]

the nazis did exactly what christianity had been doing for the previous 1000 years.

Not according to what you posted, they simply didn't.

you just keep telling yourself that.

 

[daws101]

A Brilliant Civilization Destroyed By Colonialism and Evangelical Christianity
art_india: A Brilliant Civilization Destroyed By Colonialism and Evangelical Christianity


Should Christians apoligise for destroying ancient civilizations such as the Aztecs and Incas?

And forcing them to "convert", whether they wanted to do so or not?

It seems to me that Christians have got a lot of explaining to do.


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

The christians most certainly do owe the Aztec and Incas an apology. Cortes wrote to the King and Queen of Spain that he was only able to dispatch 22000 per day. Now thats christian love for you. The Aztecs were a very advanced civilisation. You only have to look at what is left, today, of their roads and houses and the general layout of their cities. Their economy was based on agriculture. They were peace loving people who had no weapons to defend themselves. Their downfall was the fact that they used gold much as Europeans used iron. And we all know the christian hierarchy`s views on who should be rich. Perhaps while apologising they will give back the TONs of gold that they stole. As most modern christian sects broke away from the catholics since that date none can claim innocence!!!
Should Christians apoligise for destroying ancient civilizations such as the Aztecs and Incas? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers


Tomas de Torquemada - Born in Spain in 1420, his name is synonymous with the Christian Inquisition's horror, religious bigotry, and cruel fanaticism. He was a fan of various forms of torture including foot roasting, use of the garrucha, and suffocation. He was made Grand Inquisitor by Pope Sixtus IV. Popes and kings alike praised his tireless efforts. The number of burnings at the stake during Torquemada's tenure has been estimated at about 2,000. Torquemada's hatred of Jews influenced Ferdinand and Isabella to expel all Jews who had not embraced Christianity.



Militant Christianity - Evangelical Christianity: Devils in high places - Christian Aggression

 

[PratchettFan]

I would say where you went wrong is in the assumption that just because it comes from humans it must be unnatural. Human behavior is no more unnatural than the behavior of any other species. Birds build nests, ants form colonies, yet you do not see that as unnatural. I think you make a typical mistake in thinking humans are somehow special. We're not.

 

[Wake]

I would say where you went wrong is in the assumption that just because it comes from humans it must be unnatural. Human behavior is no more unnatural than the behavior of any other species. Birds build nests, ants form colonies, yet you do not see that as unnatural. I think you make a typical mistake in thinking humans are somehow special. We're not.

That's an interesting view. The reason I have difficulty accepting that notion as true is because that would mean absolutely every created idea, like rastafarianism, morality, and communism, are all "natural." It just seems like a stretch.

 

[jwoodie]

What if it's all about the Hokey Pokey?

 

[Ropey]

What if it's all about the Hokey Pokey?

Then we're doing the hokey pokey.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDmCSvqhhoI]THE HOKEY POKEY with Lyrics - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

What if it's all about the Hokey Pokey?

or could it be "that's what a hamburger's all about"! (joke for southern californians )

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Wake,

I agree with much of what you say, and I want to thank you for putting so much thought into your essay. The biggest disagreement I have with you is that I'm more inclined to believe Foxfyre's implication that there's a basic set of intuitions about right and wrong that's fundamental to the human psyche. I'm very interested in exploring those intuitions in more detail.

Next, despite the truth of what you say about the creation of laws being somewhat arbitrary, the laws still have meaning. If nothing else, they are needed to define acceptable versus unacceptable behavior in a society. A necessary evil, perhaps, but definitely necessary.

As for religion, I believe it arose to answer the questions that other approaches could not. Because the people who developed religions never could actually answer the questions, they used morality-based stories to come up with (pseudo) explanations about what existence all means.

Just my $0.02.

 

[daws101]

Wake,

I agree with much of what you say, and I want to thank you for putting so much thought into your essay. The biggest disagreement I have with you is that I'm more inclined to believe Foxfyre's implication that there's a basic set of intuitions about right and wrong that's fundamental to the human psyche. I'm very interested in exploring those intuitions in more detail.

Next, despite the truth of what you say about the creation of laws being somewhat arbitrary, the laws still have meaning. If nothing else, they are needed to define acceptable versus unacceptable behavior in a society. A necessary evil, perhaps, but definitely necessary.

As for religion, I believe it arose to answer the questions that other approaches could not. Because the people who developed religions never could actually answer the questions, they used morality-based stories to come up with (pseudo) explanations about what existence all means.

Just my $0.02.

best two cents you ever spent!

 

[Derideo_Te]

A Brilliant Civilization Destroyed By Colonialism and Evangelical Christianity
art_india: A Brilliant Civilization Destroyed By Colonialism and Evangelical Christianity


Should Christians apoligise for destroying ancient civilizations such as the Aztecs and Incas?

And forcing them to "convert", whether they wanted to do so or not?

It seems to me that Christians have got a lot of explaining to do.


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

The christians most certainly do owe the Aztec and Incas an apology. Cortes wrote to the King and Queen of Spain that he was only able to dispatch 22000 per day. Now thats christian love for you. The Aztecs were a very advanced civilisation. You only have to look at what is left, today, of their roads and houses and the general layout of their cities. Their economy was based on agriculture. They were peace loving people who had no weapons to defend themselves. Their downfall was the fact that they used gold much as Europeans used iron. And we all know the christian hierarchy`s views on who should be rich. Perhaps while apologising they will give back the TONs of gold that they stole. As most modern christian sects broke away from the catholics since that date none can claim innocence!!!
Should Christians apoligise for destroying ancient civilizations such as the Aztecs and Incas? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers


Tomas de Torquemada - Born in Spain in 1420, his name is synonymous with the Christian Inquisition's horror, religious bigotry, and cruel fanaticism. He was a fan of various forms of torture including foot roasting, use of the garrucha, and suffocation. He was made Grand Inquisitor by Pope Sixtus IV. Popes and kings alike praised his tireless efforts. The number of burnings at the stake during Torquemada's tenure has been estimated at about 2,000. Torquemada's hatred of Jews influenced Ferdinand and Isabella to expel all Jews who had not embraced Christianity.



Militant Christianity - Evangelical Christianity: Devils in high places - Christian Aggression

Gotta give Boss points for consistency, as in consistently wrong about everything.

 

[daws101]

A Brilliant Civilization Destroyed By Colonialism and Evangelical Christianity
art_india: A Brilliant Civilization Destroyed By Colonialism and Evangelical Christianity


Should Christians apoligise for destroying ancient civilizations such as the Aztecs and Incas?

And forcing them to "convert", whether they wanted to do so or not?

It seems to me that Christians have got a lot of explaining to do.


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

The christians most certainly do owe the Aztec and Incas an apology. Cortes wrote to the King and Queen of Spain that he was only able to dispatch 22000 per day. Now thats christian love for you. The Aztecs were a very advanced civilisation. You only have to look at what is left, today, of their roads and houses and the general layout of their cities. Their economy was based on agriculture. They were peace loving people who had no weapons to defend themselves. Their downfall was the fact that they used gold much as Europeans used iron. And we all know the christian hierarchy`s views on who should be rich. Perhaps while apologising they will give back the TONs of gold that they stole. As most modern christian sects broke away from the catholics since that date none can claim innocence!!!
Should Christians apoligise for destroying ancient civilizations such as the Aztecs and Incas? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers


Tomas de Torquemada - Born in Spain in 1420, his name is synonymous with the Christian Inquisition's horror, religious bigotry, and cruel fanaticism. He was a fan of various forms of torture including foot roasting, use of the garrucha, and suffocation. He was made Grand Inquisitor by Pope Sixtus IV. Popes and kings alike praised his tireless efforts. The number of burnings at the stake during Torquemada's tenure has been estimated at about 2,000. Torquemada's hatred of Jews influenced Ferdinand and Isabella to expel all Jews who had not embraced Christianity.



Militant Christianity - Evangelical Christianity: Devils in high places - Christian Aggression

Gotta give Boss points for consistency, as in consistently wrong about everything.

true

 

[Pogo]

But how is karma based on choices all that different from a person of faith's belief in heaven and hell--reward or punishment based on choices? Yes, a person might choose the smallest piece because they wanted the smaller piece or because they wanted to bless the other or to receive some favor or reward for their choice. They might give away their own piece simply because they didn't want it or somebody else needed it more or again, to be noble or generous in return for some manner of reward if only admiration of others or only to avoid feeling selfish or from the pleasure of giving another joy or from a compulsion to show compassion.

But every step of the way, whatever the scenario, value judgments are made.

In my illustration, however, those focused on pure justice can see the wisdom of one cutting the cake and the other choosing first. If there is a motive of fairness or justice or to not be cheated or deprived in any way, the child doing the cutting will do it with the precision of a master carpenter. And even here, there is a sense of right and wrong, good and bad results.

I'd say the main difference is that the individual is in control of it based on the circumstance at the time -- rather than parroting a rote book of rules that paints life into the black and white. It seems more meaningful when something is done because one figures out it's the right thing to do as opposed to because that's what this book here says, whether that book is of religion or of law.

I guess I'm just not a follower; in the ethical thought process I'd rather learn to fish than just be handed a fish. It covers more meals.

I didn't refer to a any book, so regardless of any organized religion, let's leave that out of it and focus on the concept. Even though choosing to believe or not believe, to appreciate or condemn, to obey or dismiss a 'book' is also based on our sense of value regardless of the source of that sense.

So in a purely objective anaylsis, is reward or punishment via karma all that different than reward or punishment via heaven or hell? In both cases, something unknowable and intangible drives the belief, as well as the outcome, does it not?

What 'seems more meaningful' to you or what 'makes more sense to me' in such matters is also driven by value based concepts.

Where does a believe in karma come from?

But the concepts of "heaven" and "hell" or if you like "reward" and "punishment" must come from a book, or at this point in history several versions of a book... the concept is not a given. It comprises one view but not the only one. This goes back to the "good/evil" dichotomy, which again is one view, not the only one and certainly not one I subscribe to.

Where does a belief in karma come from? Other than centuries of thought/philosophy by mystics, it's just what makes sense to me; what "feels right". And it serves my needs.

 

[rdean]

Why are language, morality, concepts, beliefs, religion and laws "unnatural"?

 

[daws101]

Why are language, morality, concepts, beliefs, religion and laws "unnatural"?

you forgot bungee jumping.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I would say where you went wrong is in the assumption that just because it comes from humans it must be unnatural. Human behavior is no more unnatural than the behavior of any other species. Birds build nests, ants form colonies, yet you do not see that as unnatural. I think you make a typical mistake in thinking humans are somehow special. We're not.

That's an interesting view. The reason I have difficulty accepting that notion as true is because that would mean absolutely every created idea, like rastafarianism, morality, and communism, are all "natural." It just seems like a stretch.

It really depends upon which definition of "unnatural" you are using. The examples you used are all "natural" to "human nature". Furthermore you can find examples of morality and communism in "nature" too.

 

[daws101]

I would say where you went wrong is in the assumption that just because it comes from humans it must be unnatural. Human behavior is no more unnatural than the behavior of any other species. Birds build nests, ants form colonies, yet you do not see that as unnatural. I think you make a typical mistake in thinking humans are somehow special. We're not.

That's an interesting view. The reason I have difficulty accepting that notion as true is because that would mean absolutely every created idea, like rastafarianism, morality, and communism, are all "natural." It just seems like a stretch.

It really depends upon which definition of "unnatural" you are using. The examples you used are all "natural" to "human nature". Furthermore you can find examples of morality and communism in "nature" too.

some people have a hard time understanding sexuality and morality are two separate concepts.

 

[PratchettFan]

I would say where you went wrong is in the assumption that just because it comes from humans it must be unnatural. Human behavior is no more unnatural than the behavior of any other species. Birds build nests, ants form colonies, yet you do not see that as unnatural. I think you make a typical mistake in thinking humans are somehow special. We're not.

That's an interesting view. The reason I have difficulty accepting that notion as true is because that would mean absolutely every created idea, like rastafarianism, morality, and communism, are all "natural." It just seems like a stretch.

And yet they are natural. I fail to see any stretch at all. Human beings are a species of animal and they have identifiable behaviors. A robin may well build a different kind of nest than a heron, but they are both nests and neither is unnatural just because they don't look the same.

 

[PratchettFan]

That's an interesting view. The reason I have difficulty accepting that notion as true is because that would mean absolutely every created idea, like rastafarianism, morality, and communism, are all "natural." It just seems like a stretch.

It really depends upon which definition of "unnatural" you are using. The examples you used are all "natural" to "human nature". Furthermore you can find examples of morality and communism in "nature" too.

some people have a hard time understanding sexuality and morality are two separate concepts.

I don't know they necessarily are separate concepts. An argument can be made that all human behavior boils down to two things - reproduction and survival. Often in that order. Morality is merely the attempt to acheive one or both of those goals.

A human being is really a pathetic thing physically. It is slow, weak, with bad teeth, no claws, lousy hearing and a truly horrible sense of smell. It has three things going for it. 1) It is a pack animal. 2) It has a brain capable of envisioning future events. 3) An opposable thumb. So we can join together in a group to bring down large animals, plan how we are going to do it and make tools to make up for the fact we are so physically inept. However, in order for us to operate as a group we have to behave ourselves both not to be ostracized and to obtain a mate. Thus we develop morality, which is really just a learned set of rules on how to behave.

Religion is an extension on our ability to plan. If we can envision what will happen if we put a sharpened stone on the end of a stick, then we can also envision what happens after we die. What we have trouble envisioning is nothing, so of course death will simply be a passage to another life - something we can envision. Where it gets messy is that we then start to plan and you get priests.

I think people get tied up in the details rather than in simply looking at the behavior. Whether it is Buddhism, Catholicism, Islam, or any other religion you might care to name - they are all essentially the same thing. They are structured pretty much the same way. As I indicated in an earlier post, a robin nest may not look the same as a heron nest, but they are still both nests.