Hatred of Christianity!

[not nom]

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

well I certainly don't care what you say for them I don't even care why you care ^^

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

guess!

This explains why you're seeing a lot of things in Fallingblood's posts that aren't there (if you even read them). You expected to see a denial based on a probably imaginary or at least grossly exaggerated notion of what the standard Christian response is supposed to be.

It would be exactly the same thing if, for instance, someone had it in their head that all followers of the Nordic traditions were white supremists and asked you "So why do you condone the attempted extermination of the Jews?", and you replied with "I don't", and the person debating you came back with "So you're denying the Holocaust happened?"

In other words: you're going to see what you were hoping to see no matter what any Christian posts here.

No, that analogy is NOTHING like what I am putting forth. But way to hyperbolise in order to get an emotional reaction by hitting on both racism and holocaust deniers in the same post.

And of course, the issue of white supremacy is absent from the history books, and the lore. Something Fallingblood unfortunately doesn't have as an excuse [at least in terms of what I am describing about Christianity; I say this because I can see you making a contextual mistake and thinking I mean white supremacy in xtianity]

What are you talking about? The bulk of Euro-centric history is a catalog of the repercussions of white supremacy. Are you really saying there's nothing about slavery, the conquest of the Americas, or the Holocaust in the history books? What school did you go to?

bolded the part in heathen hammer's response to which your last bit was a reply to. (I just thought I'd include a bit more context)

what exactly do you think "lore" refers to? how is it not obvious that "history books" is referring to a connection between nordic traditions, not to the existance of white supremacy ideologies and their repercussions.

you can't even read follow the context of your own conversation, I am utterly amazed.

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?

no, but you seemed to imply it was mostly racial. when it was in practice mostly national and messianic.

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.

I never denied "racism had anything to do with that", and I said that in my previous response. you now called that "untwisting it". because you know better than I what I know about the nazis or not. you are ******* dense on top of being boring, I'll give you that. you r winnar.

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?

that's a buddhist government for you? that was a shinto emperor. oh man. if this wasn't such a sad subject I'd be laughing my *** off right now.

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.

lalala, strawman strawman blah di bluh. you're the one to talk about boredom, you constantly repeat replying to what I never claimed. I just said not all ideologies are the same, some lend themselves to abuse more readily.

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

so? how does that make christianity not such a group? again you are just refuting the strawman that christianity is the sole source of all evil. for like the fifth time.

 

[not nom]

here, by the way, for balance if you will:

Mit brennender Sorge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Haven't looked at the OP in a while either.

Any discussion of Christianity inevitably falls into generalizations. Happens every time on the forums.

I agree that the generalizations come from both sides as well. My "beef" is that Christianity, as a term, can hardly be considered a religion or even a cultural entity because there are so many different types of Christian faiths which only share a few common factors to identify them as Christian. Before Constantine even converted and the establishment of The Church shortly thereafter there were already Arians among the Germanic peoples of the Roman Empire, gnostics all over the place and the Coptics in Africa. None of these various Christians, before the establishment of the Church, had anything to do with what happened to the various pre-Christian Hellenic groups.

The spread of Christianity into Europe is more complex than the rosy conversion many Christians may have been taught or the brutal sword point conversions others are taught. Motivations behind the actions of many Christian nations had more to do with politics than religion. Many of the conflicts among a changing European landscape as Christianity became the dominant religion hardly differ in any significant way than the conflicts that predated a Christian Europe.

As far as the requirimiento I'll await not nom's evidence that this legal document lasted more than a couple of decades, was not denounced by individuals such as Bartholome de las Casas and that the law was actually read by Conquistadors to the native inhabitants as opposed to trees and empty huts. That law was nothing more than an attempt by some Spanish legal minds to ease their own moral views towards a campaign that the Spanish government wasn't already engaged in and would continue no matter the view from the Pope or any other institution. That particular law was abolished, it appears, by the mid-16th century. As well, the document says more about the RCC at that time and it's involvement in politics than it says about the millions of different Christians and their personal faith.

We probably have less to argue about than is presumed, then.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

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



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

...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.



Every culture has their lore.

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



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



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



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



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.



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.


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

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

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.

What the hell are you talking about now?

A person as poorly capable of understanding what's being said, over so many pages, as you, need not apply for any opportunity to 'explain' anything to me. Appreciate the effort and all, but run along, kid.
Go polish your Staff badge, and try reading the site rules, while you're at it, hm?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Not Nom handling things very well here.

 

[JacobEzra.]

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.

No, you have been saying that it is a Christian belief that every knee shall bow to Jesus or else. You said that is what Christianity is all about and that is why persecution happens. In fact you even say it is still on going. I can read.

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.

Dude, I see protestantism illegit. I am arguing from a Catholic belief, and I am telling you persecution is not part of the belief, which you keep saying it is.

 

[JacobEzra.]

a

re 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*.

I don't think you know what your talking about.

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.

Now your just backtracking. You did in fact say

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

.

Ignoring that it is not justification of persecution. Im looking for you to prove its justification for persecution like you claimed.

 

[not nom]

No, you have been saying that it is a Christian belief that every knee shall bow to Jesus or else.

yes. and you read that as "or else we slaughter them here on earth". that is called a strawman. instead "or else WHAT THE TEXT ACTUALLY SAYS". popes are irrelevant to me. your personal readings are irrelevant to me. what the text says, and what some people justified with it, is my beef with christianity (that you read that as "all christians" is your own problem).

so what? the topic asked. was that some kind of rhetoric trick question? did you seriously expect nobody would bring up anything?

You said that is what Christianity is all about and that is why persecution happens. In fact you even say it is still on going. I can read.

lol. what a waste of time, and how sad.

I never said "that is what christianity is all about", and the "still going on" I already explained to you! oh wow. I said "revelation", you said "lol, prophecy about end times, not church doctrine", I said "so what, it's still a belief that it will happen, and eternally, which is just as well as it having begun trillions of years ago and still going on.

that was a statement that something that is supposed to take all eternity, is not diminished at all about not having happened yet. people said and say amen to that. maybe not you, maybe not the MODERN roman catholic church (very ******* sure the historical one), but nonetheless.

you turning that into me saying "christianity is all about persecution" and taking that "still going on" out of context like that clearly shows that you can not read at all. if you can, you're not even trying.

Dude, I see protestantism illegit. I am arguing from a Catholic belief,

heh. yeah, I noticed. what makes you think that is anything but silly nonsense? when I say something about christianity, and 2000 years of it no less, you say "only the modern catholic church counts", or what?

you don't have to argue against MY dislikes of christiany. you will simply have to cope with that I have them. if it doesn't apply to you, why respond with constant repetition of stuff you put into my mouth, no matter how often I point that out?

and I am telling you persecution is not part of the belief, which you keep saying it is.

LOL! nah, you keep repeating I say that, and at least twice now I told you, I am aware of what the text says -- the absolute claim of christianity, and the things some parts of the bible seem to be looking forward to. and I resent that.

the topic isn't why do people hate on the catholic church, or on christians, but on christianity. but even there I didn't say "thou shalt persecute" is part of the belief, 'only' "thou shalt be obedient and faithful lest you be utterly burned up", so it's double wtf.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Persecution complex rears its ugly heads... like a hydra.

 

[not nom]

Ignoring that it is not justification of persecution. Im looking for you to prove its justification for persecution like you claimed.

for the third or fourth time:

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

does not mean what you stubbornly claim it means. do you realize that I am aware that they get tormented in the presence of the lamb in the end times, and that by "trickle through into practice" I do NOT mean the practice of the belief? that belief is being faithful, believing all that and saying amen to it, and leaving the persecuting and tormenting to god -- which I ALSO already explained to you. I never talked of any official doctrine to persecute anyone.

the idea of christianity, after all, is to be persecuted, and to then get them for that, and get them good, get them forever. that is what happens. jesus doesn't get crucified, "but hey, at least he did the right thing", but he rose and reigns eternally la di blah, and when he comes back to establish his millenial reign he is going to be so ******. I don't ******* care if you have a different summary, that's yours. then answer what YOU don't like about christianity.

I simply said I find that sick, and it's not surprising when it gives people sick ideas. and sometimes it does. those don't act according to the faith -- but they think they do. is that clear enough now? contrary to you, I don't just consider what the pope declares valid. if you don't get that, just stop responding to me on the topic of christianity, because I hardly ever mean "just the catholic church".

you can wait as long as you wish for something you are pulling out of your *** because you can't read.

 

[not nom]

and you know what, just to be a jerk and to make godwin happy, saying "lol that's just end times prophecy, who knows what'll really happen", considering how clear the text is that it's NOT just a slap on the wrist or something (I mean seriously, lol, is this the twilight zone? am I just trying to explain the gravity of the faith to a catholic?).... that is kinda like saying "the führer would never do that". even though he was very, very clear that he would do exactly that.

and if even some psycho could write stuff down and pull it off, how can I dismiss such a claim coming allegedly from the creator of all existence with a "LOL"? oh that's right, I can't, so I hiss.

believe it or not, of all faiths I have the closes affinity to christianity. part of me thinks part of it is true, you know? and that's why I have a huge list of big peeves with it.

maybe I should just ignore people taking that personal... if I diss a religion, that doesn't mean I diss everyone who professes it in some way or another. I'd have to debate with the individual for that. so if you take it that way, that's yours.


this topic isn't called "good things about christianity". if the OP was intending to ask a rhetorical question and giving their answer, and then only getting "ohhs" and "ahhs" in response, that backfired. better luck next time.

 

[fallingblood]

"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

So you're trying to pin antisemitism on Hitler because of some quotes about God (he doesn't say Christianity there), yet also admit that he also despised the religion. Really not an argument here. It is more of an argument that it wasn't Christianity that was fueling his hatred (more so, he hated basically everyone who was apart of the Aryan race, or what he thought was the perfect race). Hitler's actions had little to do with Christianity.

And then you admit that Muslims treated Jews, to a point, similarly. It shows that antisemitism does not belong along with Christianity, but with society.

More so, during the periods that applied, they were not always forced into ghettos. There were periods during European history that they were free to live where they wanted. Even before that, through much of history, they isolated themselves to a point. They had a tendency (like many minorities do), to build a community within a community. We see this under the Romans, Muslims, etc. It wasn't just because they were forced into Ghettos.

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

That's fine if you think it is crude. However, if we look at the history, they do in fact isolate themselves to a point. They acted like many minorities in that sense.

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

You need to follow what you've been saying as well. What does that suggest? That antisemitism does not belong more in Christianity than elsewhere as you claimed.

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.

You stated: "that antisemitism has been fostered in a christian europe by christian authorities for nearly 2000 years." I simply showed that wasn't true. You stated it was Christians who fostered this antisemitism. You stated it was fostered for 2,000 years. I simply showed how neither were correct.

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.

Again, I was simply showing that you were incorrect.

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".

That is involved with isolating themselves. When a group isolates themselves, it makes rumors surface. It makes people talk. Those rumors and talk make people suspicious. You seem to want to continue to change the subject.

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.

Not always. In fact, we see similar treatment with many minorities or with groups who are seen to be different. Yes, there were some special circumstances with the Jewish-Christian conflict, but much of it wasn't that unique.

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?

I'm not really missing anything. I just think you're wrong. Point in case, many Jews did claim to be Christian in order to escape persecution, yet were able to remain their actual identities, to remain Jews. More so, you are talking about something we weren't addressing. So I couldn't be missing it, if it hasn't been brought up. You seem to be doing that quite repeatedly.

One can partially assimilate (and the Jews did this many times) without "being killed." Assimilation does not mean that you kill the others identity, their culture, etc. Assimilation that does that usually ends up failing.

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

You've just avoiding what I actually said now. I'm thinking it is because you have a lack of understanding of history in general.

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.

I have no idea that you blame antisemitism solely on Christianity. I have never said that. So no, it isn't a strawman as that ideal simply does not exist. You arguing against something I didn't say is a strawman. You need to read what I say in context, instead of taking me out of context, and assuming that you misconstruing what I say actually means anything. Context is important.

You did state though that antisemitism belongs more with Christianity. I am arguing that it doesn't.

As for Christianity and the Holocaust, it was a very small factor, if one at all. Yes, some Christians were involved; however, that does not make it a Christian ordeal. Christianity was not the fueling force behind the Holocaust. To state that it was is simply ignoring history and making up things. Especially when many Christians were also opposed to the whole idea (and I stress just that, Christians, not Christianity. There is a difference).

The driving force behind the Holocaust was white supremacy. That is clear enough as Hitler was trying to build a master race.

 

[Quagmire]

well I certainly don't care what you say for them I don't even care why you care ^^



guess!



bolded the part in heathen hammer's response to which your last bit was a reply to. (I just thought I'd include a bit more context)

what exactly do you think "lore" refers to?

Here ya go: Lore - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Why would anyone hear the word "lore" and immediately think it was an exclusive reference to Nordic lore?

how is it not obvious that "history books" is referring to a connection between nordic traditions,

again: why would anyone look at this and immediately think "Nordic history"? (I even said "eurocentric history").

This:

It would be exactly the same thing if, for instance, someone had it in their head that all followers of the Nordic traditions were white supremists and asked you "So why do you condone the attempted extermination of the Jews?", and you replied with "I don't", and the person debating you came back with "So you're denying the Holocaust happened?"

That was an analogy. In other words, a hypothetical situation used to illustrate a point. I wasn't saying that I personally believed that followers of the Nordic traditions were white supremists, I was purposely presenting a ridiculous scenario in an attempt to show the poster I was responding to how ridiculous he was being. I could have just as easily used an anaolgy about Eskimos, or cricket players.

For some reason he, and apparently you, took it literally and took it personally.

not to the existance of white supremacy ideologies and their repercussions.

you can't even read follow the context of your own conversation, I am utterly amazed.

No, you are utterly confused.

no, but you seemed to imply it was mostly racial. when it was in practice mostly national and messianic.

I'm not responsible for what I ''seem to be" implying in your eyes.

I never denied "racism had anything to do with that", and I said that in my previous response. you now called that "untwisting it". because you know better than I what I know about the nazis or not. you are ******* dense on top of being boring, I'll give you that. you r winnar.

Sorry, kind of hard to make out what someone is trying to say while thy're in the middle of a tantrum. Why don't you wait until you calm down a bit and give it another try?

that's a buddhist government for you? that was a shinto emperor. oh man. if this wasn't such a sad subject I'd be laughing my *** off right now.

You obviously don't know any more about Japanese history than European history.

The Japanese were followers of both Shinto and Buddhism during that part of their history. Here ya go:
[Wiki]Most Japanese people do not exclusively identify themselves as adherents of a single religion; rather, they incorporate elements of various religions in a syncretic fashion[1] known as Shinbutsu shūgō (神仏習合 amalgamation of kami and buddhas?). Shinbutsu Shūgō officially ended with the Shinto and Buddhism Separation Order of 1886, but continues in practice. Shinto and Japanese Buddhism are therefore best understood not as two completely separate and competing faiths, but rather as a single, rather complex religious system.[2]

lalala, strawman strawman blah di bluh. you're the one to talk about boredom, you constantly repeat replying to what I never claimed. I just said not all ideologies are the same, some lend themselves to abuse more readily.

Ah, so that wasn't really you who gave this sanctimonious little sermon a few posts back:

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.

That must have been the "bad not nom".

so? how does that make christianity not such a group? again you are just refuting the strawman that christianity is the sole source of all evil. for like the fifth time.

I never said that Christianity wasn't just as prone to this as any other group.

Look at the title of this thread. Now, obviously, in spite of whatever denials you want to make at this point, you have a problem with Christianity specifically. That isn't a strawman, we have your own words quoted right there above. You made claims about certain traits, practices, and prejudices that apply to Christianity and used those, apparently, to justify hatred of Christianity, completely ignoring the fact that to some extent they also apply to any other group you could name.

Deny it all you like.

 

[Quagmire]

A person as poorly capable of understanding what's being said, over so many pages, as you, need not apply for any opportunity to 'explain' anything to me.

LOL! Believe me, I understand people like you better than I ever wanted to. That's what you're objecting to.

Appreciate the effort and all, but run along, kid.
Go polish your Staff badge, and try reading the site rules, while you're at it, hm?

I would have had a lot more respect for you if you had just come right out and said "OK, I can't answer any of that, I give up".

Someday maybe you'll learn that you can't pull your foot out of your mouth by trying to pry it out with the other one.

and try reading the site rules, while you're at it, hm?

Those apply to you too btw, might want to look those over again. Be sure and let me know if you get stuck on any of the hard parts.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

LOL! Believe me, I understand people like you better than I ever wanted to. That's what you're objecting to.

Note that you didn't actually respond to my statement. QED

I would have had a lot more respect for you if you had just come right out and said "OK, I can't answer any of that, I give up".

Since I am honest if that were the case, I would have said something like that. And, your respect is unnecessary to me. You don't even rate.

Someday maybe you'll learn that you can't pull your foot out of your mouth by trying to pry it out with the other one.

more non sequitur. Perhaps you're having several cross-posts from other threads getting in here?

Those apply to you too btw, might want to look those over again. Be sure and let me know if you get stuck on any of the hard parts.

I am following them, unlike you.
Your total condescension is trolling. Since you aren't contributing, and are simply solely harassing a poster or two and not actually participating in discussion, vacate the thread, or I'll report you in teh appropriate forum

Busted, Kid.
I'll help you with the hard parts.

 

[not nom]

That must have been the "bad not nom".

nope, you just don't get a word of it haha. I can't be arsed to read your posts lol. 3 strikes and you're out or something like that.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Here ya go: Lore - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Why would anyone hear the word "lore" and immediately think it was an exclusive reference to Nordic lore?

Well, anyone familiar with the presence of Nordic religious belief would know it was called 'the lore'. Just as the word 'scripture' will indicate the religious writings of the Hebrews or Christians. I guess assuming you were a bit more up on the philosophies you were involved in a discussion in, was our mistake.

 

[McBell]

Well, anyone familiar with the presence of Nordic religious belief would know it was called 'the lore'. Just as the word 'scripture' will indicate the religious writings of the Hebrews or Christians. I guess assuming you were a bit more up on the philosophies you were involved in a discussion in, was our mistake.

So basically you are saying that you only use your favourite definition of the word lore, gave no indication that you ignore all other possible definitions of the word lore, base an argument on said definition, then attempt to dis someone for not knowing that you reject all definitions of the word lore that differ from your favourite?

Interesting "context be damned" approach.

 

[not nom]

it's not about rejecting a definition of the word lore, it's about it bleeding obvious that that referred to nordic lore. and even without that, from the context that would still have been [any other definition of lore] in the context of nordic mythology so that wouldn't really change anything it's just quagmire being a troll, or involuntary comedy. ("what school did you go to?" bwhaha)

I am not aware of it, but my guess is that it meant nordic lore doesn't contain any references to racial supremacy of any kind. "history and lore" referred to "nordic religious stuff" and, well, the history of the vikings etc. I guess ^^

yeah, so much for context haha...

 

[gnomon]

Well, anyone familiar with the presence of Nordic religious belief would know it was called 'the lore'. Just as the word 'scripture' will indicate the religious writings of the Hebrews or Christians. I guess assuming you were a bit more up on the philosophies you were involved in a discussion in, was our mistake.

This statement is backed by nothing substantive. Lore is a derived from an earlier Germanic term, certainly, but the word lore is an English term which was in use after the conversion of the various Scandinavian tribes. To state such a thing as 'the lore' references the Nordic peoples, as opposed to any of the other Germanic tribes or as opposed to it's actual common usage in the English language, is misleading.

As not nom says maybe it should have been simply understood in context but there is no need to interject a meaning of the term that is simply not true. There's plenty of that going in this thread with the meaning of the term Christianity.