Obama's Dimestore "Mien Kampf"

[Universe Prince]

Actually there was....and very simple in concept and application.  I'll paraphrase...."My apologies sirs & Rich.  What Js were trying to make clear was that despite the use Hitler had of Christian Nationalism, in pusing the Nazi movement, that in no way should be considered a foundation to the Christian religion or doctrine.  It would be akin to what Militant Islam is to the Islamic religion"

First, I'm not sure why an apology to you and Rich would be necessary. As I recall, you and Rich were the one insulting JS and me by implying that we wanted to denigrate our own faith by insidiously connecting it to Nazism. Seems to me if there is an apology in order, it would be up to you to give, not me or JS.

Second, why in the name of cheese and rice, would anyone, anyone, assume that we in any way meant that fascism or Christian nationalism is a foundation to the Christian religion or Christian doctrine? Again, since JS and I are both Christians and have made no attempt to hide this from anyone, why would we try to claim that fascism or Christian nationalism is a foundation to the Christian religion or Christian doctrine? Do you think we are closet Nazi sympathizers? HELLO? Seriously, you could be more insulting, but it would take a lot of effort.

Third, that we are not, have not and do not intend to claim that fascism or Christian nationalism is a foundation to the Christian religion or Christian doctrine has been explained several times by now. If you cannot be bothered to pay attention to what we have said, then I again submit there is no explanation and no amount of explanation that you would find satisfactory.

THAT explanation, made in post #2 following anyone's initial criticisms or repeating hither with Christianity, would have put this to bed, Looooooooooong ago

I further submit that you paying attention to what was said about this matter in reply #23, i.e. the first time I explained the situation to you, would have put this part of the discussion to bed long ago.

What the hell. Let's compare:

My apologies sirs & Rich.  What Js were trying to make clear was that despite the use Hitler had of Christian Nationalism, in pusing the Nazi movement, that in no way should be considered a foundation to the Christian religion or doctrine.  It would be akin to what Militant Islam is to the Islamic religion

--Reply #178 by Sirs

Just because one can say "Positive Christianity" is a perversion of Christianity doesn't mean there was no Christianity involved. It is real easy to say, "Oh well it was wrong because we know Jesus would never teach that", but that isn't the point. I don't believe anyone is trying to say Hitler was a model Christian person or that Nazism is somehow inherent in Christianity. I'm sure JS of all people is not going to be making that claim. The point is that aspects of Christianity were used as a means of controlling society, as a means of supporting the state, hence "Christian nationalism". Scoff if you will, but that is what it is called. I'm not saying we cannot point out that it veered from traditional and biblically based Christian teaching, or that we can't point out that for Hitler it was merely a means of controlling the populace. But if all we take away is that Nazis weren't really Christians so there was no Christianity, then we run the high risk of missing the lessons of paying attention to how Christianity is used in our own country and what can happen when religion is used as a tool for political gain. Hating and killing Jews is wrong, this is a big lesson, yes, but there are smaller lessons that get lost if we just close our eyes and say, "that wasn't really Christianity." No, it wasn't really Christianity, but we need to keep our eyes open or we may miss when the pattern begins to repeat.

--Reply #23 by Universe Prince

I'm not playing with any labels. "Positive Christianity" was a form of Christian religion that was supposed to be in line with Nazi philosophy. That is factual. The "positive" there does not mean "good". It means "active", as opposed to "passive". Yes, please, let's all argue that the Nazi philosophy had nothing to do with the teachings of Christ. No one here will argue against that. Okay? But again, that is not the point. The Nazi form of Christianity is still called "Positive Christianity", because that is what the Nazis called it, and no one has bothered to authoritatively replace that name. "Christian nationalism" is not a bogus term made up to make Christians seem like villains. It is a legitimate term for what "Positive Christianity" was supposed to accomplish, the merging of religion and patriotism. And the Nazis are not the only ones who have attempted such a goal, though they were more direct about it than most. Arguing the Nazis' Christian nationalism was not in accordance with the teachings of Christ is nice if someone asks if it was. But in the context of this discussion, wherein Mein Kampf was being discussed, it misses the point entirely. Entirely. JS, someone who certainly has every appearance here of being Christian, and a strong Catholic no less, says the book was interesting "Because Hitler's rise to power is a remarkable testament to Christian nationalism" and you chime in with "Hitler was only following Christ's teachings, right?" Not the point or the meaning of JS's comment at all. Not at all.

--Reply #28 by Universe Prince

Your point is irrelevant because no one is doing what you're talking about. No one has to attach Hitler or the Nazis to Christianity, because Hitler and the Nazis tried to do that all by themselves. If you don't like the terms "Positive Christianity" and "Christian nationalism" that is not anyone's fault but yours. No one here is creating an imaginary connection between the Nazis and Christianity. The Nazis used a form of Christian religion to control the people and to connect Christianity, the main religion of the people, to their political aims. This is historical fact. At no point does mentioning this or discussing this mean that those doing the mentioning or discussing believe the Nazis were all just good Christians following the teachings of Christ or that those doing the mentioning or discussing believe Hitler was a paragon of Christ-like virtue. It also does not mean that those doing the mentioning or discussing are attacking Christianity as somehow inherently fascist or inclined to genocide.

--Reply #41 by Universe Prince

Do I need to continue? I repeat, for those who have trouble following along and paying attention, that we are not, have not and do not intend to claim that fascism or Christian nationalism is a foundation to the Christian religion or Christian doctrine has been explained several times by now. If you cannot be bothered to pay attention, then there is no value in trying to hold a conversation with you. So we're done.

[Universe Prince]

Suppose you didn't know what a "Libertine" was and though that my calling it a bad thing was a criticism of Libertarianism?

Would I attack you for criticizing libertarianism? Unlikely, but in a bad moment, it's possible. But let's say I did, and let's further say you then explained that isn't what you meant at all and what you did mean is something different. If I then continued to claim you were trying to insidiously connect libertarianism with libertinism, basically ignoring every single explanation you gave to the contrary, would that seem to you to be reasonable or unreasonable?

[Plane]

Suppose you didn't know what a "Libertine" was and though that my calling it a bad thing was a criticism of Libertarianism?

Would I attack you for criticizing libertarianism? Unlikely, but in a bad moment, it's possible. But let's say I did, and let's further say you then explained that isn't what you meant at all and what you did mean is something different. If I then continued to claim you were trying to insidiously connect libertarianism with libertinism, basically ignoring every single explanation you gave to the contrary, would that seem to you to be reasonable or unreasonable?

unreasonable

but it happens , did you read the link about being fired for useing the N words distant cousin?

[sirs]

Actually there was (an explanation that would have been accepte)....and very simple in concept and application.  I'll paraphrase...."My apologies sirs & Rich.  What Js were trying to make clear was that despite the use Hitler had of Christian Nationalism, in pusing the Nazi movement, that in no way should be considered a foundation to the Christian religion or doctrine.  It would be akin to what Militant Islam is to the Islamic religion"

First, I'm not sure why an apology to you and Rich would be necessary.

Fine, forgoe the apology, and simply add the clarity I referenced.

As I recall, you and Rich were the one insulting JS and me by implying that we wanted to denigrate our own faith by insidiously connecting it to Nazism.

A) it was not an insult, it was a criticism, and B) it was repetativly presented because of the above lack of clarity

Seems to me if there is an apology in order, it would be up to you to give, not me or JS.

Again, skip the apology.....the clarity was what was in order that neither you or Js failed to provide.

why in the name of cheese and rice, would anyone, anyone, assume that we in any way meant that fascism or Christian nationalism is a foundation to the Christian religion or Christian doctrine?

Because, for the umpteenth time, it was consistently applied to Hitler, as if there WAS a connection.  Your failure to communicate the difference between Christianity and Christian nationalism, everytime Hitler and the rise in naziism was brought up, is yours and Js's ball of wax   


 

[Plane]

I am bored now...



pity me !

[Rich]

>>THAT explanation, made in post #2 following anyone's initial criticisms or repeating hither with Christianity, would have put this to bed, Looooooooooong ago,<

Bingo.

[Universe Prince]

but it happens , did you read the link about being fired for useing the N words distant cousin?

Yes. Not the first time I've heard about "niggardly" being misunderstood that way.

[Universe Prince]

Fine, forgoe the apology, and simply add the clarity I referenced.

[...]

A) it was not an insult, it was a criticism, and B) it was repetativly presented because of the above lack of clarity


[...]

Again, skip the apology.....the clarity was what was in order that neither you or Js failed to provide.


[...]

Because, for the umpteenth time, it was consistently applied to Hitler, as if there WAS a connection.  Your failure to communicate the difference between Christianity and Christian nationalism, everytime Hitler and the rise in naziism was brought up, is yours and Js's ball of wax   

Once again, you fail to pay attention to what was said. To be bluntly honest, this is a level of stupidity of which I did not believe you were capable. I know that you are smarter than this. Why you insist on this willful ignorance is something I do not understand.

[Universe Prince]

>>THAT explanation, made in post #2 following anyone's initial criticisms or repeating hither with Christianity, would have put this to bed, Looooooooooong ago,<

Bingo.

And Rich proves he is not paying attention either. Way to go.

[Universe Prince]

I am bored now...



pity me !

Suck it up.

[Rich]

Sorry, I am paying attention closely enough to know you deserve no apology, and will get none from me. As always, it's you who is too interested in the sound of his own voice to grasp what someone else is trying to get through your thick skull.

But please, hang on tight to your hubris, it appears to be the only thing that you're interested in.

jeeeez.

[Universe Prince]

As always, it's you who is too interested in the sound of his own voice to grasp what someone else is trying to get through your thick skull.

On the contrary, I've been trying to understand the objections you and Sirs have made. I've made explanation after explanation, and still I get told no explanation has been made. I keep saying no one had any intention of trying to make Christianity into some sort of basis for Nazism, and I keep getting told that we must have intended it because we kept making that connection. This makes no sense at all. The only way you and Sirs can keep insisting these things are so is if you're ignoring everything I've said or you're just lying for the sake of arguing the point. I don't believe the latter, so I am left with the former. And I am trying to understand why this going on. If I can explain over and over and over again without satisfying your objections, then I cannot learn any way to keep this situation from happening in the future.

Yes, I know Sirs said all I had to do was say "What Js were trying to make clear was that despite the use Hitler had of Christian Nationalism, in pusing the Nazi movement, that in no way should be considered a foundation to the Christian religion or doctrine.  It would be akin to what Militant Islam is to the Islamic religion", but once again I point out that explanations to that exact effect have been made many times. So by all means, please explain to thick skulled me why none of those explanations have any received acknowledgment by you and Sirs. If you are reading them, you've clearly ignored them. If you're not reading them, then you have no one to blame but yourselves for there being no explanation to satisfy you. In either case your assessment of hubris is 180 degrees misdirected.

But please, hang on tight to your hubris, it appears to be the only thing that you're interested in.

No, from my end of this there is no hubris. I have practically begged for an explanation to your objections. All I get is assumptions of intent, intent that never existed in the first place, as has been explained many times. Meanwhile the assumptions carry the implication that JS and I desire to link our own faith to Nazism, an obvious insult. So I explain, JS explains, intent and use and all the ways in which we are definitely not trying to claim Christianity is the foundation of Nazism, and you two keep complaining that we refuse to clarify anything, that we're intending to denigrate Christianity. Did we object to explaining ourselves? No. Did we refuse to address your criticisms? No. We explained and you ignore every damn bit of it. So the hubris here is from your end.

[Rich]

Sorry, you're rambling again. I'm not interested in your rambling.

I tried to put an end to this amicably, but you insist on insulting me.

[Universe Prince]

I tried to put an end to this amicably, but you insist on insulting me.

Insulting you?

Sorry, I am paying attention closely enough to know you deserve no apology, and will get none from me. As always, it's you who is too interested in the sound of his own voice to grasp what someone else is trying to get through your thick skull.

But please, hang on tight to your hubris, it appears to be the only thing that you're interested in.

jeeeez.

[fatman]

I tried to put an end to this amicably, but you insist on insulting me.

Poor little Rich, the victim.