Obama's Dimestore "Mien Kampf"

[Universe Prince]

Left as is, begs the inferrence that Christianity is intimate with Fascism and the rise of Hitler.

Only to someone ignorant of the standard use of the term. JS didn't invent the term. He used it appropriately.

[sirs]

Bingo....so to those who have no frellin idea of what "Christian Nationalism" is, can easily come to the conclusion of a much more underhanded attempt to bash Christianity, since no quailifier of what a mutated doctrice CN is compared to Christianity, is being used,.............. at any time. 

 

[fatman]

>>I think that it's too early to say yet.  Everyone has this idea that Obama is going to take it, but if Hillary can take a couple of the remaining states (and it looks like she'll probably take PA) she'll hang on tighter.  The Clintons haven't had to suffer defeat, I doubt that they're going to do so graciously.<<

She would have to win REALLY big in the remaining contests, so to assume Obama will be the nominee, which I did, isn't any different form what the majority of people, who are supposed to know these things, are saying. So do you sill feel this way when I say Obama will be the nominee; "But hey, don't let those pesky little things called facts spoil your day," or were you just being an insufferable little prick?

Hmm?

The FACT is that the Democrats haven't nominated ANYONE yet.  The FACT is that Roosevelt was much more liberal than either Hillary or Obama ever thought of being.  Maybe you should catch on to what a FACT is, then you might not look as stupid as you usually do.

I would reply back to you about your insufferable little prick nonsense, but I really don't want to hear about your sex life (or lack thereof), no matter how infatuated you are with mine.

[Universe Prince]

Bingo....so to those who have no frellin idea of what "Christian Nationalism" is, can easily come to the conclusion of a much more underhanded attempt to bash Christianity, since no quailifier of what a mutated doctrice CN is compared to Christianity, is being used,.............. at any time. 

Pooh yi. That still does nothing to justify the ridicule, Sirs. If that was your real problem with the use of the term, then instead of the ridicule, some informative comments of an educational nature or perhaps a question or two for the sake of clarification would have served the situation much better. Particularly since were all in agreement that JS used the term properly.

[sirs]

Bingo....so to those who have no frellin idea of what "Christian Nationalism" is, can easily come to the conclusion of a much more underhanded attempt to bash Christianity, since no quailifier of what a mutated doctrice CN is compared to Christianity, is being used,.............. at any time. 

Pooh yi. That still does nothing to justify the ridicule, Sirs. 

Of course it does.  When one is presenting a position that on it's face appears highly biased, if not bashing, and then fails to qualify it with ANY commentary that "oh BTW, yes this may be historical fact, but it's in no way consistent with any of the Christian belief system or Christ's teachings".   Something that helps to identify the TERM of "Christian Nationalism" in a more accurate light, vs just leaving it as is, and with those who have no understanding of it, are then left assuming the intimate connection being inferred.  Over and over the terms of Christianity, components of Christianity, aspects of Christianity, etc, etc, etc, being used with Hitler and the rise of Fascism, and NOTHING to more accurately reference the mutated message CN was pushing, compared to the teachings of Christ, and that of Christianity

In other words, it most certainly does justify the ridicule

[Universe Prince]

Of course it does.  When one is presenting a position that on it's face appears highly biased, if not bashing, and then fails to qualify it with ANY commentary that "oh BTW, yes this may be historical fact, but it's in no way consistent with any of the Christian belief system or Christ's teachings".   Something that helps to identify the TERM of "Christian Nationalism" in a more accurate light, vs just leaving it as is, and with those who have no understanding of it, are then left assuming the intimate connection being inferred.  Over and over the terms of Christianity, components of Christianity, aspects of Christianity, etc, etc, etc, being used with Hitler and the rise of Fascism, and NOTHING to more accurately reference the mutated message CN was pushing, compared to the teachings of Christ, and that of Christianity

In other words, it most certainly does justify the ridicule

Sirs, I'm going to be honest and direct; that is really stupid. All you had to do, Sirs, was make an adult and intelligent comment about what Christian nationalism is, or to simply ask JS to clarify what he meant. But you didn't do that. You didn't even try. You ridiculed, which doesn't actually help anyone who might not know what Christian nationalism is, and wasted a lot of time complaining about something no one was actually saying. What could have been a simple explanation of Christian nationalism in one or two posts was instead ridicule, denial and nonsense with JS and me left trying to correct denials of historical fact and to correct completely baseless and insulting attempts to paint us as trying to denigrate Christianity and to make an insidious connection between Christianity and Nazism. A simple "Well, you know the Nazis' Christian nationalism was a distortion of Christianity that does not reflect the true teachings of Christ" could have been met with an ordinary "Yes, of course" and then we could all have continued onto an actual discussion. But apparently that was not something you and Rich wanted to see happen.

In other words, no, Sirs, nothing you've said, or JS has said, or I've said justifies your ridicule in any fashion at all.

Anyone remember this: "All we are now is a forum for gratuitous juvenile insults, veiled threats that barely get read. People talk past each other, they sure don't discuss issues and seek common ground." One month, one month, after it was posted, and after everyone apologized for being part of the problem, it seems to be forgotten. I'm trying to not forget it. I'm trying to remember it. (I'm trying very hard to remember it right frakking now.) I'd like to find common ground. In this very thread, I practically begged you for some help in that regard. Give me something to help me understand, I said. You know what I got as a response to that? Nothing. You didn't even bother to address it. You seem to have ignored 99% of everything I've said in this thread. What is the point in having a conversation with you, Sirs?

[sirs]

When one is presenting a position that on it's face appears highly biased, if not bashing, and then fails to qualify it with ANY commentary that "oh BTW, yes this may be historical fact, but it's in no way consistent with any of the Christian belief system or Christ's teachings".   Something that helps to identify the TERM of "Christian Nationalism" in a more accurate light, vs just leaving it as is, and with those who have no understanding of it, are then left assuming the intimate connection being inferred.  Over and over the terms of Christianity, components of Christianity, aspects of Christianity, etc, etc, etc, being used with Hitler and the rise of Fascism, and NOTHING to more accurately reference the mutated message CN was pushing, compared to the teachings of Christ, and that of Christianity.  In other words, it most certainly does justify the ridicule

Sirs, I'm going to be honest and direct; that is really stupid. All you had to do, Sirs, was make an adult and intelligent comment about what Christian nationalism is, or to simply ask JS to clarify what he meant.

You would think, that with the consistent criticism provided, and the reason for that criticism, my asking would not have been necessary, and his clarification should have been right up front.  But no, he, nor you, did such.  You didn't even try.  So, you want to ridicule my ridicule, be my guest.  It's just as valid as you consider yours to be

[_JS]

A few points:

1. I really don't see the point in continuing Prince. I understand the desire to try and understand, but you cannot fit the irrational world into the rational world.

2. The book is titled Mein Kampf not Mien Kampf as the thread subject reads. The "ei" in German is pronounced like the long i sound in English as in the name "Einstein". The "ie" is pronounced like the long e sound as in the word "lien". "Mein" is the possessive form of I, known as an attributive adjective. "Mien" has no meaning in German as far as I know (I could be wrong, Ami?). The word "Miene" means something along the lines of "expression."

3. I find it humorous that Christian Nationalism is a perversion "just like Islamofascism." Yet, it is perfectly acceptable to go around and and drop the term Islamofascism whenever and wherever one likes, as many times as one can fit it into conversation. On the other hand, even mentioning the historical association of Christians with Fascism "can't be done." Some people have double standards that serve their worldview just fine, even if blatantly hypocritical.

4. One can be a Christian and acknowledge that over the centuries some Christians have done some really awful things. One can be an American and acknowledge that over time the Americans have done some really awful things. We learn from our mistakes gentlemen. That's part of being a mature adult. It doesn't make you "anti-Christian" nor does it make you an "America-hater" to own up to reality.

[sirs]

and 5), When Christians have done "really awful things"....news flash, they're NOT Christian.  Being American doesn't require acting a certain way, it requires you be born and standing in America.  Being Christian does mandate a certain level of living righteously.  Does that mean perfection?, of course not.  It does mean however that you avoid repetatively doing "really awful things"

[Xavier_Onassis]

Apparently the proper definition of 'Christian' is someone who professes Christianity and does not do things that the defining party thinks are unChristian.

Read about Father Charles Coughlin. He was a RC priest and a major influence in his time. Was he a Christian, or did he just pretend to be one on the radio?

[fatman]

and 5), When Christians have done "really awful things"....news flash, they're NOT Christian.  Being American doesn't require acting a certain way, it requires you be born and standing in America.  Being Christian does mandate a certain level of living righteously.

Who gets to make that determination?  You?  The Pope?  The Patriarch of Constantinople?  The Archbishop of Canterbury?

This is the source of most of the conflict within the Christian Community.

[sirs]

and 5), When Christians have done "really awful things"....news flash, they're NOT Christian.  Being American doesn't require acting a certain way, it requires you be born and standing in America.  Being Christian does mandate a certain level of living righteously.

Who gets to make that determination?  You?

Yes....knowing what it means to be Christian, and walk a path that Christ would advocate allows me the ability to judge when others are not.  Knowing what I know of the Bible and God's commandments allows me the ability to judge when others are not following them.  Nor does it mandate that any other Christian apply my judgements.  It's all apart of the free will phenomenon, I suppose

A common misconception layed at the feet at Christians is that they're supposedly being hippocritical if they dare to judge someone's actions.  That's incorrect.  We most certainly are encouraged to judge other people's actions, in order to reinforce what's right and what's wrong, in our decision making.  What we are to refrain from, judgement wise, is claiming who is or isn't going to go to heaven.  That's specifically God's domain, but judging others' actions most certainly are apart of being Christian

This is the source of most of the conflict within the Christian Community.

Not from this Christian

[Universe Prince]

You would think, that with the consistent criticism provided, and the reason for that criticism, my asking would not have been necessary,

And you've missed the point once again. The point being that we could have avoided the ridicule and the constant pointless criticism of something no one was saying with a simple comment or question to provide clarification.

and his clarification should have been right up front.

Why? Should he assume we're all ignorant 6th graders to whom he has to explain every term every time he uses one? Personally, I would prefer he not.

But no, he, nor you, did such.  You didn't even try.

Clarification was given many times over in this thread, Sirs, by us. Understanding was sought by me. You did nothing but repeat your irrelevant point over and over and over. You ignored most of what I said, and what JS said, as that quote above clearly shows.

So, you want to ridicule my ridicule, be my guest.  It's just as valid as you consider yours to be

Sirs, I have not begun to ridicule your comments here. I could, and believe me there is a part of me that would like to do so, but I won't.

I talked to my father about this topic. He's far more into history than I am (I think he majored in History in college) and I asked him if there was something controversial about speaking of Christian nationalism and the Nazis. (Because I do honestly try to understand.) My father is very much the conservative, fiscally and socially. He is also a Christian, has spent a lot of time studying the Bible, writes the study plan for his church's small groups, argues with the television every time he's watching some History Channel show about the Bible or Christianity. So anyway, I asked him about Christian nationalism and Nazism. He said, basically, that there probably are people who want to deny the "Positive Christianity" and the Christian nationalism aspect of the Nazis rise to power, but that there was nothing really controversial about the notion of Christian nationalism. As far as he is concerned, the name is accurate and the only reason to deny this is if you're afraid someone will confuse your personal faith with Nazism. Obviously JS and I don't have that fear.

I feel I should also add, my father and I agreed that Christian nationalism is one of the best arguments for the separation of church and state.

[Universe Prince]

I really don't see the point in continuing Prince. I understand the desire to try and understand, but you cannot fit the irrational world into the rational world.

I know. I'm too optimistic sometimes.

I find it humorous that Christian Nationalism is a perversion "just like Islamofascism." Yet, it is perfectly acceptable to go around and and drop the term Islamofascism whenever and wherever one likes, as many times as one can fit it into conversation. On the other hand, even mentioning the historical association of Christians with Fascism "can't be done." Some people have double standards that serve their worldview just fine, even if blatantly hypocritical.

Indeed.

One can be a Christian and acknowledge that over the centuries some Christians have done some really awful things. One can be an American and acknowledge that over time the Americans have done some really awful things. We learn from our mistakes gentlemen. That's part of being a mature adult. It doesn't make you "anti-Christian" nor does it make you an "America-hater" to own up to reality.

Exactly.

[_JS]

and 5), When Christians have done "really awful things"....news flash, they're NOT Christian.  Being American doesn't require acting a certain way, it requires you be born and standing in America.  Being Christian does mandate a certain level of living righteously.

Who gets to make that determination?  You?  The Pope?  The Patriarch of Constantinople?  The Archbishop of Canterbury?

This is the source of most of the conflict within the Christian Community.

Fatman, despite Sirs answer, the truth is that one can do really awful things and still be a Christian.

knowing what it means to be Christian, and walk a path that Christ would advocate allows me the ability to judge when others are not

The quote above from Sirs is very much incorrect. It is not a matter of judging whether one is a Christian or not. He does not have that ability. As a Christian we do have the duty to correct someone who has taken actions that are contrary to Church teachings. This can be found primarily in the letters of Paul and Peter.

What should never be forgotten is the infinite love of the Christ. Even when one has committed a mortal sin, he or she must always remember that Christ's love is not in dispute. That is not to say that the ramifications of one's sin go away by any means. We are responsible for our sin and the temporal harm we cause to others and ourselves. We are also responsible for the celestial harm we cause to God. At the same time, we must always remember the Passion and never doubt that we can seek forgiveness. That forgiveness does not come from Sirs or any temporal figure, but from the suffering on the cross and the resurrection of Christ. We never require the approval of people such as Rich or Sirs. Never.

They are sinners, as are we. They are in no better position to judge one's heart and faith than any other sinner. We only need to reconcile with Christ. Always remember, when anyone gets on his or her high horse, that Peter denied Christ three times. All of the apostles fled when the going got tough in Jerusalem. Only John and Mary stood under the Cross and dare to be marked as the followers of an executed criminal. So, if the pillars of the Church, Christ's closest companions - the Apostles, can commit such a grievous sin - you can trust that one's Christianity is not lost through even mortal sin. That isn't a license to sin as one wishes (which should be obvious to anyone who reads the Bible or any church doctrine), but no one here has the authority to cast anyone else from the ranks of Christianity.