Hatred of Christianity!

[Quagmire]

Mere snidery, I won't respond in specific here.

If you're having trouble understanding what someone is saying to you, don't just blow it off, ask for clarification.

How are wars among whites, an issue of white supremacy?? But that's irrelevant, since somehow you misconstrued this statement of mine as if I were NOT speaking of Nordic/Heathen lore, and conquest/exploration.

You said "the history books". Since no one's been talking about the Vikings specifically for 5 pages now the obvious interpretation of this:

And of course, the issue of white supremacy is absent from the history books, and the lore.

...would be world history in general. I even specified "Eurocentric history". If you don't know what a word means, look it up or just ask. Otherwise communication is going to be next to impossible.

How are wars among whites, an issue .I SPECIFICALLY stuck the word 'lore' in there to make the distinction.

Every culture has their lore.

Why would anyone look at the word "lore" and immediately think "Nordic"?

Im not sure where your delusion comes from but, there's nothing in Heathen lore promoting a difference based on skin. We didnt really attack anyone on the African coast, but we got thereabouts and traded. Who we DID attack were other Anglos. And we took white slaves.

Like I said: no ones been talking specifically about the Nordic people's for 5 pages now.

So really, you're totally off the map with this one. How's the egg?

The one you just laid you mean? I don't think it was worth all the clucking.

[edit] also, on rereading your statement a few times, I must ask: how is Euro-centric history a catalog of white supremacy when nobody really spoke of 'white supremacy' in any real technical sense until the rise of the German Reich [and even then, it wasn't white supremacy, it was a specific nationalism]? Doesn't there have to be a 'yay we're white!' emphasis for it to be 'supremacy'?

Nope. all it takes is the perception of any non-white people's as lesser beings with fewer rights.

Or is it 'white supremacy' simply because the winners were white? I don't know, the more I read this the odder your statement sounds. Is the history of the Asian sub-continent a catalog of 'brown supremacy'??

If Africans had achieved modern empire, conquered/invaded other continents and exploited the inhabitants based on a perception of racial inferiority of those people's, yes. They didn't so it's a moot point.

Please, get over yourself.

It doesn't require any special talent to actually take the time to read and consider what someone else is saying. It may sound like a daunting task to you, but cheer up: we have Wiki, Wiktionary, a host of answer sites, and more than enough people right here to help you with any terms or concepts you're having trouble with.

Blah blah blah.

Like I said: if you don't understand what's being said to you, just ask.

It's nothing like what I said, because your three statements [from the anecdotal interrogator] were non-linear and nonsensical that's why. The jumps are non sequitur.

It probably seems that way to you because you lost the thread of the conversation at some point (probably at several points).

I frame my progress in relation to what came before it, that's why it isn't.

I said show me, don't tell me. Obviously you can't.

You can say "nuh uh" all you like, that means nothing at all. If I say the sky's blue, you can sit there going "nuh uh" all day and you know what? It's still going to be blue.

If you didn't understand the analogy, like I keep saying, just say so and I'll be happy to clarify it for you.

Like you actually care anyway.

What the hell are you talking about now?

 

[JacobEzra.]

because christianity has the idea that jesus wants everybody who doesn't "bend their knee" to him slaughtered in his presence, which is expected to trickle through into practice in some way or other.

Christianity has that idea? Man, you are so wrong I do not even know what to say...Maybe check out that post I qouted Nostra Aetate....That would be a start.

 

[not nom]

When did I "overlook" the fact that Europe was Christian? Again, you missed the point: the point I was making was that the global imperialistic policies that the European powers were operating under through most of the history of the world from the Middle ages on were to a large extent influenced by the self-perception of racial superiority of the Caucasian political powers.

I got that just fine, which made me state you overlooked the influence of the self-perception of eternal superiority of christians over all non-christians.

now, as to the holocaust... that was based on antisemitism and german supremacy, not white supremacy.

Are you kidding? what do you think "Aryan" means?

no I'm not. what's your point? if you think you just refuted what I said, you gotta be more verbose about it.

aryan means a lot of things, originally "honourable, respectable, noble". it means "we're the good guys", just like "christian" does. to the nazis it meant nordic. of which the germans were clearly the bestest.

If that's true then why did Hitler initially include the UK and several other Western European nations in his plans to create an Aryan Empire? If you'll read the history you'll see why: for no other reason than that they were (by his perception) fellow Aryans. In other words "pure white".

what hitler had in his head, and what gave the nazis power over the german people, were two rather different things. the nazis talked about the german people incessantly. he used the christian church, which with the exception of the confessing church mostly let itself be used willingly.

Not entirely accurate: Christian Europe, ie., Christendom, was the "main breeding ground for antisemitism" yes, Christianity itself no. Christianity is a religion, not a demographic. The demographic that perpetrated the pogroms was predominantly Christian, but the persecution itself usually wasn't conducted for religious reasons.

the jews would not EVER have shown up on anyone's radar if those people didn't have their religious ideas, and were ****** off that the jews didn't partake in them. christian europe isn't thinkable without christianity.

It wasn't the "basis" for the persecution, it was an excuse. How obvious does that need to be?

it's not obvious at all.

To call historical knowledge "history knowledge" AMUSING.

you are missing a verb there. mr. "english is my native language". we can talk about this in german if you want? I'm sure you teached yourself that perfectly. needless to say, jokers like you are the reason I don't even bother capitalizing anymore.

You're bending over backwards here to separate Nazism from the ideology of white supremacy. This is like trying to separate football from sports. Good luck with that.

nah. I'm just saying, there is white supremacy which isn't nazism. neonazis are called neonazis for a reason, they're not nazis. the nazis was a very specific movement, it was the NSDAP, it was tied to germany more to than white skin. there was racism always anywhere, and minorities have always been persecuted for the "excuse of the day" -- yet the nazis were based on the feeling of unity among german, white, christian people who had a führer who would save them and then some.

nazis where about germans, OF COURSE that implies white skin. so? it also implies two legs. there was still better white skin and "meh" white skin - the whole "blonde, blue eyes" thing. (and one can't help but have thoughts about how much that was really the driving factor, looking at the short, black haired, brown eyed, (ugly) hitler. he didn't even have a jaw, wtf is that, that has puzzled me since I was a kid ^^)


I can only speak for myself... when I started believing, and started realizing what the text is actually saying there, I called god a nazi more than once. that's where I'm coming from. all monotheism is fascist. not all monotheists are fascists, and god may not necessarily be a tyrant. but fascist blackmail is fascist blackmail, and christianity does have it's share of pigs who enjoy sending it. there's plenty of people who define good by "if god says it's good". there's people who believe others will be tortured eternally, and they'd rather not ask questions, they just assume there's good reason for that and are happy THEY are a member of the party.

that's why I put confusedianism, because since the very first day I begun to believe in god and that something is important about jesus, I turned against it, with a passion. I can trust a man that gets crucified, I don't trust some kind of invisible naked emperor with a flaming sword coming out of his mouth. those can get ******, after I kicked them in the nuts... if even I as a tentative christian can't help but hate so much of it, how would that not apply much more to others, who witness that pompous, chauvinistic show from the outside? that doesn't mean I have prejudice against individual christians, that strawman needs to get retired already... but a doctrine that says "anybody is to be hated (and more) who doesn't sign this dotted line" -- is to be hated, in my eyes. that doesn't mean I hate the people who believe that. I just pity them, and keep conversations to a minimum. because there's just no arguing with stockholm syndrome.

 

[not nom]

Christianity has that idea? Man, you are so wrong I do not even know what to say...Maybe check out that post I qouted Nostra Aetate....That would be a start.

you're right, it's "tormented", not slaughtered, my bad. I was wrong, it's worse.

Revelation 14:9-11

And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.

and who falls for the beast? well, all who aren't very super firmly in christ.

QED.

 

[JacobEzra.]

you're right, it's "tormented", not slaughtered, my bad. I was wrong, it's worse.

Revelation 14:9-11

And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.

and who falls for the beast? well, all who aren't very super firmly in christ.

QED.

Wow, soo you have no documents or doctrines, proclaiming what you claimed to be Christian belief. Instead you qoute a prophetic text in the book of Revelation talking of what happens to the people at the end of days who followed the beast. Nice.

So I take it this is your way of saying you have nothing, and was just talking out of your ***?

 

[not nom]

Wow, soo you have no documents or doctrines, proclaiming what you claimed to be Christian belief. Instead you qoute a prophetic text in the book of Revelation talking of what happens to the people at the end of days who followed the beast. Nice.

So I take it this is your way of saying you have nothing, and was just talking out of your ***?

and how is a prophetic text not a document? how is the belief that that will happen, not a christian belief?

what does christianity save one from, other than the wrath that is incurred upon all those who aren't saved? i.e., non-christians? you either have some weak-*** modern "it's all good" faith, kinda like I do, hoping that god can't possibly be such a random jerk -- or what the book actually says...?

 

[not nom]

and btw, at the end of days, forever, is just as well as it having happened a trillion years ago and it still being ongoing. the fact it is, some people say amen to that. if you need me to find that for you, I wonder what websites you visit, or if you have ever used youtube and such. because it's kinda hard to miss.

 

[fallingblood]

Are you saying that they were asking for it?

Did you read what I said? Taking me out of context, and then assuming it means something that in no way is supported by what I say, simply is dishonest.

 

[fallingblood]

But also tell that to the Christians who said Jews killed Christ. Tell that to the Christian who tried to convert heathen Africans, and Native Americans. However yes there are some decent Christians on this planet. Like all cultures.

There are actually many good Christians.

More so, many Africans loved the missionaries. Partially because they also brought education. Many also partially assimilated into the culture, and allowed the indigenous people to still retain their tradition and culture.

Yes, there were serious problems as well. However, it is much more difficult than just simply that. There were a number of benefits as well.

As for Native Americans, some of the biggest supporters for Native American rights were Christians as well.

 

[fallingblood]

it belongs there more than anywhere else. to deny that, is delusion.

Not even close. The fact many other people, many other groups, religious and nonreligious, are antisemitic show that this is not just a Christian thing, and does not belong more there than anywhere else. Also, to try to right off any opposition to be delusional simply is ridiculous. It is a poor tactic.

Also, the fact that more and more Christians are becoming less antisemitic would suggest something besides what you claim.

no, you just assume that because I say things you don't like.

I say that as it is what I see. It has nothing to do with me not liking what you say.

you need to stop playing with strawmen. I never claimed "the christians decided one day to hate the jews". I'm never saying all christians were are are antisemites. that's just strawmen so you can feel like you're arguing against what I said.

I didn't claim that you claimed that Christians decided one day to hate the Jews. I also didn't say you said all Christians are antisemitic. I'm not using strawmen. I simply introduced what I was saying.

that antisemitism has been fostered in a christian europe by christian authorities for nearly 2000 years.

Not really. There were some, albeit short periods, in which Jews experienced an amount of freedom, and were fine. They were not always persecuted. Also, it wasn't always because of Christians either. Muslims also fostered the idea as well. As well as some atheists (to a lesser extent; however, that was because they were a minority as well). Not to mention all of the other groups.

there's two ways to kill jews: one is to kill them, the other is them assimiliating themselves.

Jews have survived and flourished under many regimes. And it is that partial assimilation that allowed them to flourish in many instances. In fact, many groups have flourished while assimilating to a point. And really, we do see Jews still assimilating throughout history. Yet they are also able to keep their own sense of identity.

And really, that doesn't address what I was saying. It is a fact that Jews isolated themselves to a bit, which made people suspicious of them. And I was only saying that was one factor.

so how was it a problem they didn't effectively suicide? the problem was that they got killed because they didn't, not that they didn't.

Did I say that was a problem? Nope.

Also, since one does not have to isolate themselves in order to remain from being completely assimilated, your argument fails.

Not to mention that we see other religions and other groups being a part of Europe that time that did not die because they assimilated to a point.

your strawmen, I don't care about them. I deal with this topic as a german AND a wannabe christian. if you think I'm just trying to blame something on christianity for fun, you're wrong. this stuff makes me sick to my stomach, but it's there, undeniably.

Just because you say it is a strawmen, doesn't make it so. And really, just dismissing it, doesn't make it really go away.

if only they hadn't made themselves such easy targets! *pukes*

Did I say they made themselves such easy targets? No. I said that they were easy targets. There are many factors involved with them sticking together in their own communities. Part of that is because they had strength, community, and a level of security by creating their own community. However, that also makes them a target when they isolate themselves (at least to a point).

 

[JacobEzra.]

and how is a prophetic text not a document? how is the belief that that will happen, not a christian belief?

Well, technically the belief is that thouse who decide to follow the 'beast" will perish in the lake of fire, or you may say, eternal damnation. How is it not a document that states Christian belief is that all non-Christians shall bow or else be tormented here on earth? Are you kidding me? For one, this prophetic text speaks of the end days when Christ will Judge. Two, you could argue who is worshipping the beast and then prove that.

Soo..not only does the text not express the exact accusation you made(,Which for the record I will repeat, is not a belief in the Church. ) but is open to interpretation and takes place in the future, end of days.

Yeah. Now can you find actual documents that actually proffess this supposed belief, which contradicts the doctrine I have already posted? Or are you just going to go on with silly nonsense?

what does christianity save one from, other than the wrath that is incurred upon all those who aren't saved? i.e., non-christians? you either have some weak-*** modern "it's all good" faith, kinda like I do, hoping that god can't possibly be such a random jerk -- or what the book actually says...?

I have posted what I believe as stated in Nostra Aetate. Your free to look at it. As well as take a look at the Roman Catholic Catechism which can be found at Vatican.va.

 

[JacobEzra.]

and btw, at the end of days, forever, is just as well as it having happened a trillion years ago and it still being ongoing.

Hmm, where is it ongoing? Where are Catholics forcing conversions? Forcing every knee to bend or else? Where exactly?

the fact it is, some people say amen to that. if you need me to find that for you, I wonder what websites you visit, or if you have ever used youtube and such. because it's kinda hard to miss.

LOL Yes, I would just LOVE to see you post a video where the Pope says such! Shoot, I'll give it to you if you can even fine ONE Bishop who has said such without reprocussions! LOL

Websites I visit? Sure I'll list a few religious sites I go to for info.

http://www.vatican.va/
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
http://www.catholic.com/
http://www.catholic.org/

Oh and then theres this one place that is pretty fun http://www.facebook.com/

Not ot mention sometimes when I want a good laugh I look up Jack Chick Tracts

 

[Quagmire]

I got that just fine, which made me state you overlooked the influence of the self-perception of eternal superiority of christians over all non-christians.

So in other words, you didn't get it.

no I'm not. what's your point? if you think you just refuted what I said, you gotta be more verbose about it.

aryan means a lot of things, originally "honourable, respectable, noble". it means "we're the good guys", just like "christian" does. to the nazis it meant nordic. of which the germans were clearly the bestest.

We're talking about what it meant to the Nazis.

what hitler had in his head, and what gave the nazis power over the german people, were two rather different things. the nazis talked about the german people incessantly. he used the christian church, which with the exception of the confessing church mostly let itself be used willingly.

All you're doing now is trying to change the subject. You said:

the nazis didn't believe in white supremacy,

I showed you (and why anyone would have to is beyond me) that you're completely wrong here. The superiority of the Aryan ("pure white") "race" was central to Nazi ideology. The fact that Hitler also used religion to manipulate the German people doesn't disqualify that.

the jews would not EVER have shown up on anyone's radar if those people didn't have their religious ideas, and were ****** off that the jews didn't partake in them.

Sorry but this is a ridiculously over-simplistic analysis of the situation.

christian europe isn't thinkable without christianity.

Gee, ya think?

it's not obvious at all.

It would be if you took the time to actually study history.

you are missing a verb there. mr. "english is my native language". we can talk about this in german if you want?

I was mimicking you. don't they have sarcasm in German?

I'm sure you teached yourself that perfectly. needless to say, jokers like you are the reason I don't even bother capitalizing anymore.

LOL! You can't handle it when people treat you the way that you treat them, huh. We have quite a few names for people like that in English.

So you're staging a one man protest against "jokers" like me by not using cap lock anymore. Uh, OK.......

nah. I'm just saying, there is white supremacy which isn't nazism.

No, that wasn't what you were saying at all. You were saying that Nazism had nothing to do with white supremacy.

neonazis are called neonazis for a reason, they're not nazis. the nazis was a very specific movement, it was the NSDAP, it was tied to germany more to than white skin. there was racism always anywhere, and minorities have always been persecuted for the "excuse of the day" -- yet the nazis were based on the feeling of unity among german, white, christian people who had a führer who would save them and then some.

nazis where about germans, OF COURSE that implies white skin. so? it also implies two legs.

Uh huh, but you didn't see Hitler giving speeches about what nice legs Germans had, huh? He gave quite a lot of speeches about the "superiority of the Aryan race".

there was still better white skin and "meh" white skin - the whole "blonde, blue eyes" thing. (and one can't help but have thoughts about how much that was really the driving factor, looking at the short, black haired, brown eyed, (ugly) hitler. he didn't even have a jaw, wtf is that, that has puzzled me since I was a kid ^^)


I can only speak for myself... when I started believing, and started realizing what the text is actually saying there, I called god a nazi more than once. that's where I'm coming from. all monotheism is fascist. not all monotheists are fascists, and god may not necessarily be a tyrant. but fascist blackmail is fascist blackmail, and christianity does have it's share of pigs who enjoy sending it.

Just like EVERY OTHER IDEAOLOGY, POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS. that's the point

there's plenty of people who define good by "if god says it's good". there's people who believe others will be tortured eternally, and they'd rather not ask questions, they just assume there's good reason for that and are happy THEY are a member of the party.

Just as there have been plenty of people who defined good by what's good for the state, or good for their political party, or their race, etc. and used that to justify all of the above.

That last bit of your post was just a sermon that had nothing to do with what we're talking about so I'm going to ignore it, but do me a favor: if you're going to get up on your soap box again, could you not use one of my posts as a springboard?

 

[not nom]

Not even close. The fact many other people, many other groups, religious and nonreligious, are antisemitic show that this is not just a Christian thing, and does not belong more there than anywhere else.

"His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine."

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

-- adolf hitler in that book of his

sure, he also privately despised christianity. he liked islam or shinto more.. not so "flabby", as speer claimed hitler to have said.

but who else made them wear yellow stars and yellow clothing? muslims first (dunno about yellow), but also christians, and again and again, and for long times. though the christians made muslims and arabs wear something, too.

you keep talking about how they isolated themselves. during the periods where that applied, they were only ALLOWED to live in ghettos. christians forced them to wear stuff like this

and you talk about isolating self? I find that so crude.

Also, the fact that more and more Christians are becoming less antisemitic would suggest something besides what you claim.

and that would be? why not simply say what you think that suggests?

Not really. There were some, albeit short periods, in which Jews experienced an amount of freedom, and were fine. They were not always persecuted. Also, it wasn't always because of Christians either.

again, I never said it was "always" christians, or that they were always persecuted. so if you want to make a point, make it directly, you constantly addressing stuff I didn't say is tiring.

Muslims also fostered the idea as well.

yeah, I know. I just didn't go into that part of it. seeing the topic is about christianity, I'm not a muslim (can't say I'm a christian either I guess, but that's what I was flirting with), and european.

And really, that doesn't address what I was saying. It is a fact that Jews isolated themselves to a bit, which made people suspicious of them. And I was only saying that was one factor.

so? it made people even more suspicious because they had this "we're the good guys" religion. "why would the jews not be baptized and do all the stuff we do? oh that's right, they rejected god in the flesh".

but yes, people used to be xenophobes in many ways, generally speaking. anyone with strange ways "moving into the neighbourhood" could elicit that. but still, the thing between the jews and the christians (and the jews and the muslims) was SO much more personal.

Also, since one does not have to isolate themselves in order to remain from being completely assimilated, your argument fails.

nah. you are repeatedly missing that there needs to be a collective that thinks it's correct, for there to be friction with a smaller collective that also thinks it's correct.

how far should they have gone? convert to christianity? what "identity" could a jew keep that isn't connected to judaism?

Not to mention that we see other religions and other groups being a part of Europe that time that did not die because they assimilated to a point.

sure, like christianity, which went along smoothly with all sorts of rulers. congrats.

Just because you say it is a strawmen, doesn't make it so.

your idea that I blame solely christianity for antisemitism IS a strawman. see above for example, "it wasn't always christians". that's as if responding to my claim it was always christians. I know when you're misrepresenting what I think, dude, and it's not like you can actually quote me to show it's not a strawman

I just found it funny to bring up white supremacy and the holocaust, and ignore christianity and the holocaust. so I mentioned it. and instantly you dismiss it on basis of "there have been other factors", too. lol... yeah I know that. but I also know that christianity does have a lot of corpses in the basement when it comes to the jews, as does islam.

 

[not nom]

Hmm, where is it ongoing? Where are Catholics forcing conversions? Forcing every knee to bend or else? Where exactly?

what? can't you read? I was speaking of the afterlife. and you say "lol that's some prophecy about the end times", as if it didn't totally mesh in with the rest. as if "it's not yet" matters when it's supposed to be forever and ever and ever. should it happen, by the time it happens, it will be as if it has been forever. that's what I meant "as if it had begung trillion years ago etc. blah blah". geez.

LOL Yes, I would just LOVE to see you post a video where the Pope says such! Shoot, I'll give it to you if you can even fine ONE Bishop who has said such without reprocussions! LOL

dude, if you want to talk about the catholic church, say so. if you only consider catholics christians, say so. otherwise, annoy someone with that who gives a **** about the catholic church specifically, which isn't me. when it comes to antisemitism, how could I forget the protestants? but sure, I use "the church" to mean a lot of things. sometimes it's the RCC, sometimes another "official church", etc.

there are plenty of priests who preach damnation and hellfire and whatnot. I don't care if a "bishop" says that, it doesn't even have to be a catholic priest. a priest is quite enough, thank you.

 

[not nom]

Well, technically the belief is that thouse who decide to follow the 'beast" will perish in the lake of fire, or you may say, eternal damnation. How is it not a document that states Christian belief is that all non-Christians shall bow or else be tormented here on earth? Are you kidding me?

I didn't say "here on earth" did I. I said that's part of the book of the faith. that those who do not submit -- first and foremost not to good or truth or love, but to the "office" jesus has -- will get either tormented forever (no use denying that was part of the faith historically, or that many people still believe it), or exterminated (that's the friendly option! it doesn't even have much leg to stand on scripturally, jesus warned of hell a LOT, but yeah, even if it wasn't eternal torture, at best "only christians survive")

I said "trickle through into action". I even said that people who do that do NOT follow god's word, because god reserves that judgement. I just said it's there, part of the canon, for sickos to use... as opposed to something to just be frightened of that keeps people in line, which a lot of people believe and even more believed historically, no matter how you want to diminish the impact of that.

and you turn that into me claiming there is a doctrine that says people who don't accept christ should be tortured on earth, and ask me if I am kidding you? holy ******* ****.

Soo..not only does the text not express the exact accusation you made(,Which for the record I will repeat, is not a belief in the Church. ) but is open to interpretation and takes place in the future, end of days.

Yeah. Now can you find actual documents that actually proffess this supposed belief, which contradicts the doctrine I have already posted? Or are you just going to go on with silly nonsense?

blah blah blah. see above.

I have posted what I believe as stated in Nostra Aetate. Your free to look at it. As well as take a look at the Roman Catholic Catechism which can be found at Vatican.va.

are you aware that this document marked a big turning point away from the claim of absoluteness that was the norm before it? that this is the reason such a thing had to be written in the first place? *facepalm*

but that's no matter, I don't care about your personal beliefs. I don't care about the RCC as if no further christianity existed beyond it. I never blamed you for anything, and I never said anything about the modern church - did I. so all that flat out doesn't apply. it's, as you might put it, "silly nonsense".

I never claimed all christians believe this or that. I said it's in the ******* book, and a lot of people do believe it. and you want videos from popes, wtf? as if no evidence before video technology counts, and as if popes and bishops were the only christians. heh².

 

[not nom]

We're talking about what it meant to the Nazis.

yeah, and? I still don't see the connection between norse mythology and antisemitism. the nazis were mostly protestants and catholics, not heathens.

All you're doing now is trying to change the subject. You said: "the nazis didn't believe in white supremacy,"

... as much as they belied in GERMAN supremacy. which is a fact. way to cut off what I said and twist it.

I showed you (and why anyone would have to is beyond me) that you're completely wrong here. The superiority of the Aryan ("pure white") "race" was central to Nazi ideology. The fact that Hitler also used religion to manipulate the German people doesn't disqualify that.

neither does the racism disqualify that most christians went along with them. the confessing church wasn't a huge success, you know?

Sorry but this is a ridiculously over-simplistic analysis of the situation.

orly? then how would the jews have shown up on the radar in a comparable fashion if religion had not been a factor? how is me claiming it was an important factor, an necessary one, an "analysis of the situation"?

You were saying that Nazism had nothing to do with white supremacy.

BS. I said they were first and foremost about germans, not white people. that whole norse mythology -> holocaust stuff makes me think you were talking about neonazis, not nazis. the nazis, the way I use the word, include nazi germany and the populace that made it possible. that hitler and his high ranking peeps despised the church behind closed doors I know, and that they dabbled in history, mythology, spirituality etc. as well. but when it came to ruling time, it was about germans. they fostered a sense of good german (christian) community, not to mention being fruitful and multiplying, and when the time came the german people were so deep in hypnosis, they did just about everything in order to defend that paradise, following their messiah everywhere. they were brought up on christianity and reaped with the nazis. yes, the nazis were racists, but the very religious and kinda naive germany accepted them with open arms, instead of there instantly being some kind of friction between the nazis and christianity. there wasn't. there was the confessing church, there were others, but for the most part, it was disgusting goosestep towards the promised land.

Uh huh, but you didn't see Hitler giving speeches about what nice legs Germans had, huh? He gave quite a lot of speeches about the "superiority of the Aryan race".

right. do you want to tally how often "god" and "fate" are mentioned, how often "germany", and how often the word "aryan" or "aryans"? I personally don't recall ever having heard hitler say that, but then again I haven't heard or read all speeches. so by all means, shoot!

but of course, mentioning god is just "using religion", and mentioning race is not using it. gotcha. but still, I'd be up for that "german" vs. "aryan" tally.

Just like EVERY OTHER IDEAOLOGY, POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS. that's the point

as I said, if you want to pretend that would also be possible with buddhism, you're nuts. all ideologies are not the same. christianity, in the book, is about god who is a devouring fire for all who don't submit. as is islam. judaism seems more chillaxed, but then again I hardly know it. but yeah. if you say "the whole world except us is evil", the whole world is going to hate you. ironically, that was used against the jews, by both. that they are arrogant etc.

 

[not nom]

if you're going to get up on your soap box again, could you not use one of my posts as a springboard?

because you asked so nicely, I'll answer nicely: no, I will use your posts as springboards. however not exclusively your posts; that's as far as I can go.

 

[Quagmire]

yeah, and? I still don't see the connection between norse mythology and antisemitism.

Who the hell said anything about a connection between Norse mythology and antisemitism?

the nazis were mostly protestants and catholics, not heathens.

The Nazis were mostly Nazis.

... as much as they belied in GERMAN supremacy. which is a fact. way to cut off what I said and twist it.

It was twisted to begin with. I was trying to un-twist it.

neither does the racism disqualify that most christians went along with them. the confessing church wasn't a huge success, you know?

Well, at least you're admitting there was racism involved now. Guess that's progress.

orly? then how would the jews have shown up on the radar in a comparable fashion if religion had not been a factor? how is me claiming it was an important factor, an necessary one, an "analysis of the situation"?

You were claiming it was the only factor.

(ignoring the herp derp...)

You're ignoring history.

BS. I said they were first and foremost about germans, not white people. that whole norse mythology -> holocaust stuff

So in other words you're basing your whole interpretation of my argument on something I never said. That's brilliant.

makes me think you were talking about neonazis, not nazis. the nazis, the way I use the word, include nazi germany and the populace that made it possible. that hitler and his high ranking peeps despised the church behind closed doors I know, and that they dabbled in history, mythology, spirituality etc. as well. but when it came to ruling time, it was about germans.



right. do you want to tally how often god and fate is mention, how often germany, and how often the word "aryan"? I personally don't recall ever having heard hitler say that, but then again I haven't heard or read all speeches. so by all means, shoot!

but of course, mentioning god is just "using religion", and mentioning race is not using it.

What the hell are you talking about now? You said the Nazi Ideology had absolutely nothing to do with any perception of racial superiority. I never said anything about Hitlers use of religion one way or the other.

gotcha. but still, I'd be up for that "german" vs. "aryan" tally.

And that would prove what exactly? Did I say the Germans weren't Aryans? Did I say that the whole Nazi platform was exclusively racial and not national?
Like I said: at least now you're admitting that racism had something to do with it, that's a big step forward IMO, but don't confuse the issue by trying to claim that anybody stated it was the only factor.

as I said, if you want to pretend that would also be possible with buddhism, you're nuts.

So there have never been any predominantly Buddhist governments that perpetrated atrocities against other people? Ever heard of the Rape of Nan King by the Japanese? The Bataan Death March? Pearl Harbor?

What were the Japanese in your version of history? Amish?

You seem to be implying that torture, persecution, exploitation, slaughter of innocent people, attempted genocide, and every other atrocity that's been perpetrated by humankind uniformly regardless of religious, political, racial, or national identity is somehow a specifically Christian phenomenon.

It's a specifically human phenomenon. The scope of the inhumanity is always proportionate with and dependent on the amount of power and influence any given group has, not on what their particular ideologies are.

all ideologies are not the same. christianity, in the book, is about god who is a devouring fire for all who don't submit. as is islam. judaism seems more chillaxed, but then again I hardly know it. but yeah. if you say "the whole world except us is evil", the whole world is going to hate you. ironically, that was used against the jews, by both. that they are arrogant etc.

Show me any group of people clustered under any given ideology who don't claim to be in some way better than everyone else.

 

[Quagmire]

because you asked so nicely, I'll answer nicely: no, I will use your posts as springboards. however not exclusively your posts; that's as far as I can go.

You really don't care how much you bore people, do you.