If only people had read "Mein Kampf"
Out of curiosity, has anyone here read Mein kampf?
Hitler was only following Christ's teachings, right?
Not only, but Christ was a member of the Chosen People, and Hitler felt that the modern version of the Chosen People were the Germans. If the Jews had been the Chosen People after Jesus, they would never have been driven out of Israel, would they?
LMAO@ Christian Nationalism!
Hitler was only following Christ's teachings, right?
Yes, I deny it.
Positive Christianity isn't Christianity. It's a perversion.
Therefore, Christianity isn't a factor in Hitler's Germany.
Just because a murdering dicator & regime calls something they did, or claim something he does is connected to "Christianity", doesn't make it Christian, despite "history's" application of the Christian label
Just because a murdering dictator & regime calls something they did, or claim something he does is connected to "Christianity", doesn't make it Christian, despite "history's" application of the Christian label
Just because one can say "Positive Christianity" is a perversion of Christianity doesn't mean there was no Christianity involved.
Well, if you're saying that "Positive Christianity" had no connection to any advocation or support of violence, terror, extermination, or segregation, then yea, you'd have a point.
Well, if you're saying that "Positive Christianity" had no connection to any advocation or support of violence, terror, extermination, or segregation, then yea, you'd have a point.
Um, no, that is obviously not what I'm saying. So explain then, if you would be so kind, why I don't have a point. I'm half expecting at this point for someone to tell me the Crusades had nothing to do with Christianity either.
My point being, just because someone(s) do things that are evil, and unarguably wrong, and claim it's part of the Chritisian doctrine, or has Christian "connections", doesn't make it Christian, or even Christ like.
Whe Hitler is brought up in the same vane as Christianity, it's often to infer the negative side of Christianity. The problem is, that it's a bogus inferrence, since there are no connections that advocate the extermination of masses that are not followers.
So you can play with these labels of "positive Christians" until your blue in the face. Point being, saying and acting are 2 different things. and anyone acting on behalf of mudering millions, regardless if there's some supposed Christian connection or being done "in the name of God", doesn't make it Christian, or anything remotely having to do with Christ's teachings.
My point being, just because someone(s) do things that are evil, and unarguably wrong, and claim it's part of the Chritisian doctrine, or has Christian "connections", doesn't make it Christian, or even Christ like.
My point being that no one is saying anything about Hitler or the Nazis being examples of Christ-like behavior.
Yea, that's why Hitler and Christianity keep getting repeated in the same sentences. Right ::)
QuoteMy point being that no one is saying anything about Hitler or the Nazis being examples of Christ-like behavior.
Yea, that's why Hitler and Christianity keep getting repeated in the same sentences. Right ::)
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows.
In the Bible we find the text, 'That which is neither hot nor cold will I spew out of my mouth.' This utterance of the great Nazarene has kept its profound validity until the present day.
There are three words which many use without a thought which for us are no catch-phrases: Love, Faith, and Hope.... We are fanatical in our love for our people....
We have faith in the rights of our people, the rights which have existed time out of mind. We protest against the view that every other nation should have rights - and we have none. We must learn to make our own this blind faith in the rights of our people, in the necessity of devoting ourselves to the service of these rights; we must make our own the faith that gradually victory must be granted us if only we are fanatical enough. And from this love and from this faith there emerges for us the idea of hope. When others doubt and hesitate for the future of Germany - we have no doubts. We have both the hope and the faith that Germany will and must once more become great and mighty.
We have faith that one day Heaven will bring the Germans back into a Reich over which there shall be no Soviet star, no Jewish star of David, but above that Reich there shall be the symbol of German labor - the Swastika. And that will mean that the first of May has truly come.
We want honestly to earn the resurrection of our people through our industry, our perseverance, our will. We ask not of the Almighty 'Lord, make us free'!-- we want to be active, to work, to agree together as brothers, to strive in rivalry with one another to bring about the hour when we can come before Him and when we may ask of Him: 'Lord, Thou seest that we have transformed ourselves, the German people is not longer the people of dishonour, of shame, of war within itself, of faintheartedness and little faith: no, Lord, the German people has become strong again in spirit, strong in will, strong in endurance, strong to bear all sacrifices.' 'Lord, we will not let Thee go: bless now our fight for our freedom; the fight we wage for our German people and Fatherland.'
Among the congregations of the Protestant confessions there has arisen in the "German Christians' a movement that is filled with the determination to do justice to the great tasks of the day and has aimed at a union of the Protestant state churches and confessions. If this question is not really on the way towards a solution, in the judgement of history no false or stupid objections will be able to dispute the fact that this service was rendered by the volkisch movement at a time when, unfortunately, just as in the Roman Church, many pastors and superintendents without reason have opposed the national uprising in the most violent, indeed, often fanatical, way.
The nothing would be the continued application of Hitler with Christianity, as if they went together like PB&J. My apologies if my point was simply to direct, and didn't have the required amount of nuance to debate
>>That can certainly be argued.<<
Thank you. So that's the end of the ridiculous notion that the Nazi's preached Christianity.
How can we avoid Fascism if we don't understand it?
The nothing would be the continued application of Hitler with Christianity, as if they went together like PB&J. My apologies if my point was simply to direct, and didn't have the required amount of nuance to debate
No, that is not the problem. The problem is that your point is entirely irrelevant to the discussion...
What's being dealt with is the constant effort to attach Hitler/Nazism with Christianty, as if there's some intimate connection. There isn't. It's like a 4th cousin one removed
Historical facts?
It's a cornerstone to the discussion, since so often when the topic of Hitler & Nazism comes up, the left immediately pulls christianity into the conversation, as if it has some foundation to Hitler's regime. As I said, just because people used elements of the religion, didn't make their acts Christian oriented or Christ like.
What's being dealt with is the constant effort to attach Hitler/Nazism with Christianty, as if there's some intimate connection. There isn't. It's like a 4th cousin one removed
You want to argue that Hitler used aspects of Christianity? Fine, no one is disputing what that which they supposedly used.
It's a cornerstone to the discussion, since so often when the topic of Hitler & Nazism comes up, the left immediately pulls christianity into the conversation, as if it has some foundation to Hitler's regime. As I said, just because people used elements of the religion, didn't make their acts Christian oriented or Christ like.
Your point is irrelevant because no one here is saying the Hitler and/or the Nazis were Christ-like.
QuoteWhat's being dealt with is the constant effort to attach Hitler/Nazism with Christianty, as if there's some intimate connection. There isn't. It's like a 4th cousin one removed
So the Jews, Roma, and Christians who saw and wrote about this connection were just lying? Because Sirs says so?
UP,
Historical facts?
I see, so because the Nazis used whatever means they could think of to convince Germans they were the master race, including a perverted idea of Christianity, you believe Christianity was a driving force behind Nazi motivation?
Don't condescend to me little miss "Christians loved Hitler."
It's a cornerstone to the discussion, since so often when the topic of Hitler & Nazism comes up, the left immediately pulls christianity into the conversation, as if it has some foundation to Hitler's regime. As I said, just because people used elements of the religion, didn't make their acts Christian oriented or Christ like.
Your point is irrelevant because no one here is saying the Hitler and/or the Nazis were Christ-like.
I didn't say that either. I said the implication is consistently brought up by bringing Christianity into the conversation, everytime the left starts discussing Hitler and Nazis. Please pay attention
No, because the acts of Hitler and the Nazi were in no way Christian or following that of any of Christ's teachings. Care to show me the scripture(s) in the New Testament that has Christ advocating mass extermination & world domination?? Didn't think so. so again, no one is arguing about Hitler, or any other nutcase perverting a religion to push their own agenda....Militant Islam is doiing that currently. What is being argued is that there's some inferred intimate connection between Hitler's nazism & Christianity. There just simply isn't
The idea that Hitler was a Christian is much like the idea that you're a Christian JS.
But I understand JS, you are inclined to believe people like Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Saddam Hussein when they tell you things. Especially when it props up your own prejudice, right? These are people you can trust ... right?
The idea that Hitler was a Christian is much like the idea that you're a Christian JS.
But I understand JS, you are inclined to believe people like Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Saddam Hussein when they tell you things. Especially when it props up your own prejudice, right? These are people you can trust ... right?
Here's the other cheek brother. Go ahead.
Where are these quotes from? For example, page 6 & 7 of what?
The source is there "brother."
::)
I have yet to see you provide any proof to support your little tirade. All I've seen you do is deny.
Please, enlighten us all as to how Christianity played such a large part in the Holocaust that was Nazi Germany. Tell us all about how the Catholic Church supported Hitler, and how Hitler never persecuted Christians.
Please, go on ... Google quickly. Because anyone who believes Hitler was a Christian is seriuosly deluded.
What waste of time.
this thread was originally about the most radical liberal ever to be nominated by the democrat party
Whats most interesting about all this nonsense is that while radical Islam is doing everything in it's power to obtain nuclear weaponry, Kill Americans, missiles are being lobbed into Israel daily, Americans are fighting overseas, and all we still get around here is Christian bashing.
Dont you think Obama will be nominated? If not, why?
And I'm not sure how we're ever going to get thru to you and Prince....that the insidious connecting Christianity to Hitler & Nazism, regardless of the "historical fact" of their being Christian influences, that they were obviously perverted, (in much the same way militant Islam perverts the lessons of the Koran & Islam) by Hitler & Company.
So, to be honest, I really have no idea what your goal here is, in repeating references of Christianity with Hitler. I could guess, but I might not be wrong
And I'm not sure how we're ever going to get thru to you and Prince....that the insidious connecting Christianity to Hitler & Nazism, regardless of the "historical fact" of their being Christian influences, that they were obviously perverted, (in much the same way militant Islam perverts the lessons of the Koran & Islam) by Hitler & Company.
So, to be honest, I really have no idea what your goal here is, in repeating references of Christianity with Hitler. I could guess, but I might not be wrong
What "insidious connecting?"
And I'm not sure how we're ever going to get thru to you and Prince....that the insidious connecting Christianity to Hitler & Nazism, regardless of the "historical fact" of their being Christian influences, that they were obviously perverted, (in much the same way militant Islam perverts the lessons of the Koran & Islam) by Hitler & Company.
So, to be honest, I really have no idea what your goal here is, in repeating references of Christianity with Hitler. I could guess, but I might not be wrong
What "insidious connecting?"
The repeating over and over and over and over again of the Christian "influences" & "aspects" Hitler and his Nazi Regime had, and the bringing about of Fascism. THAT insidious connecting.
I mean, we could discuss the "historical facts & trends" of Hillary's appearance, especially those eyes when she becomes a tad hysterical. That wouldn't be "bashing" in your book, because it's simply discussing historical facts, right?
>>THAT insidious connecting.<<
Remember, these are folks who all went into little tizzies over discussing fascisms influence on modern liberalism. There was none right? And to even discuss it made you a monster. Remember? But Christianity and Hitler is a historical fact and if you don't believe that you're just stupid.
Right.
::)
So you are denying that intellectual movements within Christianity had anything to do with the rise of Fascism? Is that what you are saying?
You think that I'm making these "insidious connections" with some evil agenda of my own, which would be?
So you are denying that intellectual movements within Christianity had anything to do with the rise of Fascism? Is that what you are saying?
NOOOOO, for crying out loud. You can pervert Christianity all you want to bring rise to a madman like Hitler. And i've said Yes, there are those who have twisted Christianity to help bring about Fascism. What part of that concession do you keep missing??
Ties to Christianity ... yes, I'll deny it, because nothing they said or did was even remotely Christian.
Saying Hitler or Mussolini's motivations were Christian in nature would be like saying Reverend Wright's motivation's are Christian, or Bill Clinton's motivations are Christian. They can call themselves whatever they want, and you can believe them, but the reality of it is they weren't Christian, what they preached wasn't Christian, therefore there was no Christian influence.
>>Except no one was bashing Christians. Once again, Rich is victorious against a strawman.<<
Right. Right. Associating Hitler with Christianity doesn't reflect on Christianity in a negative way.
Right.
The repeating over and over and over and over again of the Christian "influences" & "aspects" Hitler and his Nazi Regime had, and the bringing about of Fascism. THAT insidious connecting.
Remember, these are folks who all went into little tizzies over discussing fascisms influence on modern liberalism. There was none right?
Saying Hitler or Mussolini's motivations were Christian in nature
What does it explain?
Please enlighten us with your great insight into my opinion on this matter.
The repeating over and over and over and over again of the Christian "influences" & "aspects" Hitler and his Nazi Regime had, and the bringing about of Fascism. THAT insidious connecting.
So discussing history is insidious connecting?
>>No one here has said that "Hitler's or Mussolini's motivations were Christian in nature." I have no idea who you are arguing with.<<
So you deny that Hitler was preaching Christianity in order to influence Christians?
Repeating a perversion of the Christian religion with Hitler and Fascism, would be the "insidious connecting", I'm referring to. Grasping the difference yet?
>>No one here has said that "Hitler's or Mussolini's motivations were Christian in nature." I have no idea who you are arguing with.<<
So you deny that Hitler was preaching Christianity in order to influence Christians? Aren't you saying that's what he was doing? In order for your premise to be true, Germans would have had to buy into the message. Since you're beating the historical fact drum, you can certainly produce some kind of evidence that his Christian message worked. You would also have to produce some kind of support from the Church, if we are to believe Christiany in any way supported Hitler's message. Otherwise it's just a madman spouting nonsense. (Hitler, not you)
Waiting ...
Repeating a perversion of the Christian religion with Hitler and Fascism, would be the "insidious connecting", I'm referring to. Grasping the difference yet?
No. Once more, no one is claiming the Nazis or Hitler were good, moral Christians. The facts of the matter are that the Nazis used aspects of Christianity to further their own ends and that some churches (which includes members of those churches) actually embraced Nazism.
My point all along, is the insidious repetition of pulling Christianity into the conversation, so often when Hitler is being discussed....AS IF there's some intimate connection between the 2, in which there isn't.
My point all along, is the insidious repetition of pulling Christianity into the conversation, so often when Hitler is being discussed....AS IF there's some intimate connection between the 2, in which there isn't.
Okay, so then why scoff at the mention of Christian nationalism?
Left as is, begs the inferrence that Christianity is intimate with Fascism and the rise of Hitler.
>>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?
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.
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
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.
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?
This is the source of most of the conflict within the Christian Community.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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
>>Saying Hitler used Christian language to sway people is not the same as saying Hitler's motivations were Christian.<<
Please, tell us how it is you know what motivated Hitler in this instance.
Waiting ...
So if his perverted idea of Christianity wasn't his motivation, then why bring it up?
If you know it was all bullshit, then why the hell do you insist on trying to form some kind of "historical" connect?
Of all the documentaries I've watched about Hitler, WWII, and the books I've read on the subject, NEVER has a real historian spent a second on connecting Nazism and Christianity.
Only long afterwards when some hack wants to take a crack at Christianity does it even get mentioned as a "historical" fact.
>>One month, one month, after it was posted, and after everyone apologized for being part of the problem, it seems to be forgotten.<<
You have absolutely no reason to talk UP. You started on with the shitty little remarks before anyone else did. LONG before anyone else did.
You couldn't be more wrong, Js :-\
The strawman thing is also tedious.
>>Pooh yi<< For starters.
Whatever the hell that means.
Then there's:
>>Go right ahead. Just don't expect to eat at the adults' table any time soon.<<
You couldn't be more wrong, Js :-\
How so?
>>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.
C.S. Lewis makes a similar point in "Mere Christianity" that a Christianity modified to a modern standard or a modified at all is adulterated Christianity the point of which is to make use of Christs appeal for purposes not found in scripture.
So it may be true that Hitler made use of Christian scripture when he could , but that the ultimate purpose of this use was contrary to Christ is also a truth.(Perhaps this dichotomy should be made clear?)
I suppose I should read these , for myself , but for reasons of time budgeting I am unlikely to read the both very soon , which is more relivant to the life I lead?
For starters, it rules out the unidirectional nature of time.
If Jesus had left behind a "Book of Jesus" that spelled it all out, then I imagine that we might have fewer denominations, sects and cults.
To posit that a sinful thought I had in 2004 could be canceled out by someone enduring suffering on a cross in AD33 or thereabouts defies all logic about the nature of cause and effect. For starters, it rules out the unidirectional nature of time. The effect must always follow the cause: first, the act, then the forgiveness for said act.
There is also more than a bit of illogic in the concept that suffering is a good thing.
I'm willing to start over if you are.
C.S. Lewis makes a similar point in "Mere Christianity" that a Christianity modified to a modern standard or a modified at all is adulterated Christianity the point of which is to make use of Christs appeal for purposes not found in scripture.
Every time I see that point made, I can't help but think of the fact that Jesus was in effect modifying the Judaism of the time because it had been modified by others. At this point, who determines what is pure Christianity and what is adulterated?Quote
If Jesus didn't have the right to expound and explain the word of God , then he was not Christ.
So it may be true that Hitler made use of Christian scripture when he could , but that the ultimate purpose of this use was contrary to Christ is also a truth.(Perhaps this dichotomy should be made clear?)
Should be? You mean it has not been yet? How much more explaining is needed before it becomes clear?
Should be early in the process made clear , like too early for the very likely misunderstanding to entrench itself.
Was the origional article really makeing direct comparison between Hitler and Barak Obama? Was the point of bring ing Hitler into the conversation to measure one with the other?
I hope not , so what was the purpose of bringing Hitlers use of scripture into the conversation?
It is in scripture that Satain uses scripture himsef when he can , a delightfully recursive concept.
You couldn't be more wrong, Js :-\
How so?
By the ever famous pressing of a false premice, then providing quotes/facts/scripture to refute the false premice. The false premice in this case that sirs was somehow advocating that Christians are to judge others and then to faciltate a change in behavior to fall inline as to what we judge to be right vs wrong. If you had payed attention, you would have seen how clearly I made it that we are to judge others actions, in order to better make our OWN decisions
In other words, we indeed are obliged to judge others and their actions, and to judge what is right vs what is wrong, what is good vs what is evil, and in no way is it hippocritic to do so
Sirs: 5), When Christians have done "really awful things"....news flash, they're NOT Christian.
Fatman: Who gets to make that determination? You?
SirsYes....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.
Christians need to examine new ideas in the light of Christ , if Hitler was using Christian language in a perverse way he wasn't inventing anything.
The problem is your wrong Js. Your quotes/scripture/references again entail that we're not to judge who is and isn't going to heaven. We are obliged to judge who is acting good and who isn't, who is acting Christ-like, and who isn't. When one is not acting Christ-like, they aren't Christian. Occasional mistakes in judgement are 1 thing. Repetatively performing evil, sinful, nonChristian acts, does not a Christian make. It's not rocket science
::)
The problem is your wrong Js. Your quotes/scripture/references again entail that we're not to judge who is and isn't going to heaven. We are obliged to judge who is acting good and who isn't, who is acting Christ-like, and who isn't. When one is not acting Christ-like, they aren't Christian. Occasional mistakes in judgement are 1 thing. Repetatively performing evil, sinful, nonChristian acts, does not a Christian make. It's not rocket science
::)
I'm simply disagreeing Sirs. We can correct another's actions, certainly.
But, your theology puts limits on God's Love - even His capacity to Love.
Now, I don't believe in once-saved-always-saved as some Protestants do, but I don't feel it is my place to tell others if they are or are not Christians.
I see....so basically, you're going 1 step beyone me. You believe it's Christian to fix other people's un-Christian like ways, while I stop at prayer & living by example. Good thing there is so-called seperation of Church & State
Not in any way at all. "My theology" is consistent with the free-will God has given us to live our lives as we see fit. And if someone I can clearly see is repetatively NOT following God's edicts, I have no problem judging them not to be Christian, and I simply pray harder for them
Fine.....don't. That's your call. You'll note that in "my theology", I'm not mandating anyone follow my lead. Simply that we don't cross the line and say it's a Christian's place to judge who's to be saved or not. THAT's when it's no longer "our place"
I have no problem judging them not to be Christian, and I simply pray harder for them
================================================================
This brings up an interesting thought. To wit, how does one 'pray harder'?
I have no problem judging them not to be Christian, and I simply pray harder for them
================================================================
This brings up an interesting thought. To wit, how does one 'pray harder'?
Does one pray louder, does one use more words, does one wag their head up and down like Orthodox Jews, or try to create a callus on their forehead like Sheik Zawahiri from whacking it on the pavement of the temple? Does one pray for a longer duration?
It is unfortunate that there is no standardized scale, as with PSI in pounds per Square Inch or Newtons, or in Ohms as in amount of resistence. We could say that "He prayed for X hours at a PIL (Prayer Intensity Level) of 120.
The actual effectiveness of the prayer could mostly only be measured by God,though, as prayers are a way of getting God to move on some issue. Still, if God is always focused on everything happening everywhere, and is already infinitely just ,then the way prayers actually work would seem rather debatable.
One assumes that one cannot up the sincerity level of the prayers, as all prayers should be 100% sincere from the start.
Withough being of the experience of prayer and a walk with God Xo, you could never understand. Using an extreme example, one generally prays harder for a dying relative than for a sunny weekend
==================================================================
I can se how one might want a dying relative to live longer or die less painfully or perhaps to achieve a better place in the Choir Celestial. One tends to yearn more for a a good meal than for an extra ootsie on one's Tootsie Roll, but the issue is how does one go about this? Walking with God I have found difficult, due to the invisibility of said Supreme Being.
Christians need to examine new ideas in the light of Christ , if Hitler was using Christian language in a perverse way he wasn't inventing anything.
Indeed, and I believe that was pointed out as well.
I did not see why such great offense was taken either.
So should Obama feel no offense at his work being placed in juxtaposition to itlers writings?
So should Obama feel no offense at his work being placed in juxtaposition to itlers writings?
Considering the source, probably not. One expects that sort of nonsense from Ann Coulter. Seems to me the offense for Obama would be if Coulter liked and endorsed his book.
Anyway, I don't understand why you're asking that question. For one thing, that wasn't the offense JS and I were talking about. For another, no one was concerned about whether or not Obama might have been offended.
So should Obama feel no offense at his work being placed in juxtaposition to itlers writings?
Considering the source, probably not. One expects that sort of nonsense from Ann Coulter. Seems to me the offense for Obama would be if Coulter liked and endorsed his book.
Anyway, I don't understand why you're asking that question. For one thing, that wasn't the offense JS and I were talking about. For another, no one was concerned about whether or not Obama might have been offended.
It was simular in shape.
Compareing Obama's work to Hitlers work then dropping the comparison uncontrasted , isn't fair, to make such a comparison and leave the contrast undone implys a simularity between the authors , perhaps without any justifacation at all.
Perhaps the main simularity is that they both used ink and paper, this is left un- examined un- fairly.
"Christian Nationalism" should be contrasted with "Christianity" if there is any diffrence.
If terms like "Christian nationalism" or "Positive Christianity" offend you, that is too bad. If you want the terms explained, no one here is going to stop you from explaining them or from asking for clarification. And if you can convince the world at large to use some other terms for these things, more power to ya. In the meantime, criticizing people for using these common terms (common in the context of the issue of fascism in 1930s Europe) is ridiculous, and that is putting it mildly.[/color]
I didn't know it was a common term , I am just now being introduced to it.
Is it really so commonly understood that I should have already been familiar it or that my familiarity with it should have bveen a safe assumption?
In my experience, Plane, the term "Christian nationalism" is common when discussing these matters. But again, if there was an issue with the meaning of the term, a request for clarification would have been more useful, imo, than criticizing people for using the term or trying to lay down the ridiculous accusation that the term was used with the intent to make Christianity seem fundamentally linked with Nazism.
In my experience, Plane, the term "Christian nationalism" is common when discussing these matters. But again, if there was an issue with the meaning of the term, a request for clarification would have been more useful, imo, than criticizing people for using the term or trying to lay down the ridiculous accusation that the term was used with the intent to make Christianity seem fundamentally linked with Nazism.
Where as, in my experience, when a term or concept is being criticized, and one realizes that the basis of the criticism is a decreased awareness of the term and how it's basically a tweaked version of X (in this case, Christianity), and that the c/o's being lodged are unnecessary because of that. If they're not aware of the basis, they then would initiate greater clarity of the concept, vs continuing to apply the same concept being criticized
Is Christian Nationalism present in the US , or in modern Europe?
Makeing the nation more Christian is a diffrent aim, I suppose, than makeing Christian more Nationalistic.
Where as, in my experience, when a term or concept is being criticized, and one realizes that the basis of the criticism is a decreased awareness of the term and how it's basically a tweaked version of X (in this case, Christianity), and that the c/o's being lodged are unnecessary because of that. If they're not aware of the basis, they then would initiate greater clarity of the concept, vs continuing to apply the same concept being criticized
Where as, in my experience, when a term or concept is being criticized, and one realizes that the basis of the criticism is a decreased awareness of the term and how it's basically a tweaked version of X (in this case, Christianity), and that the c/o's being lodged are unnecessary because of that. If they're not aware of the basis, they then would initiate greater clarity of the concept, vs continuing to apply the same concept being criticized
Sirs, the term was explained. The lack of insidious intent of use was explained. That you continued to make ridiculous objections to the use of the term is no one's fault but yours. As I said before, if you can convince the rest of the world to use a different term, by all means go right ahead. I see little point in making up new terms here just to appease you and Rich.
Do you understand how an alarm was rung?
Or how unringing a bell is difficult?
My argument is with the connection, as if somehow Christianity had everything to do with the success of Hitler.
No without Christianity there could be no Hitler. Is that what you're saying?
Anyway ... Once the bell has been rung, people with less morals than you Prince, will point to this in order to say Christianity is the same as Nazism.
So, while in a scholastic vacuum we can discuss the bit part Christianity played in any number of things, but in this instance it should always be portrayed as an abomination, not the genuine article.
Where as, in my experience, when a term or concept is being criticized, and one realizes that the basis of the criticism is a decreased awareness of the term and how it's basically a tweaked version of X (in this case, Christianity), and that the c/o's being lodged are unnecessary because of that. If they're not aware of the basis, they then would initiate greater clarity of the concept, vs continuing to apply the same concept being criticized
Sirs, the term was explained. The lack of insidious intent of use was explained.
Where as, in my experience, when a term or concept is being criticized, and one realizes that the basis of the criticism is a decreased awareness of the term and how it's basically a tweaked version of X (in this case, Christianity), and that the c/o's being lodged are unnecessary because of that. If they're not aware of the basis, they then would initiate greater clarity of the concept, vs continuing to apply the same concept being criticized
Sirs, the term was explained. The lack of insidious intent of use was explained.
No, it wasn't, not satisfactorily at least....thus the continued criticisms applied
No, it wasn't, not satisfactorily at least....thus the continued criticisms applied
If I were to say that this task were like the task of Sisyphus I imagine that most of us would have learned the tale of Sisyphus and the reference would to all of these be effective , but in any large group there would be a subset that had not yet heard the tale of Sisyphus and the small number that was unfamiliar would find my reference cryptic.
No, it wasn't, not satisfactorily at least....thus the continued criticisms applied
Then I submit there is no explanation and no amount of explanation that you would find satisfactory. Which doesn't make your criticism any less ridiculous or insulting.
If I were to say that this task were like the task of Sisyphus I imagine that most of us would have learned the tale of Sisyphus and the reference would to all of these be effective , but in any large group there would be a subset that had not yet heard the tale of Sisyphus and the small number that was unfamiliar would find my reference cryptic.
Indeed. Yet I feel certain if I didn't know of Sisyphus I would ask what you meant rather than assume you had some insidious intent and then criticize that insidious intent.
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"
THAT explanation, made in post #2 following anyone's initial criticisms or repeating hither with Christianity, would have put this to bed, Looooooooooong ago
| 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 |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
Suppose you didn't know what a "Libertine" was and though that my calling it a bad thing was a criticism of Libertarianism?
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?
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.
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.
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?
but it happens , did you read the link about being fired for useing the N words distant cousin?
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 >:(
>>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.
I am bored now...
pity 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.
I tried to put an end to this amicably, but you insist on insulting me.
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.
I believe you when you say your intention wasn't to smear Christianity with a Nazi brush.
I even told you I understood your intentions, but you felt that warrented calling me stupid.
Plane has tried to explain that you are going about this the wrong way and yet you simply can't seem to shut up.
Sirs had explained the objection to you twenty times, and yet you continue to lecture us on how stupid we are for misunderstanding you benignly associating Hitler with Christianity.
Being told that I did not say what I know I did more than once actually say is frustrating for me. What am I doing wrong, I ask myself. How can I possibly be more clear than I have been? I don't know. I try and try to explain. I try and try to understand why the same objection comes back to me along with an insistence that I have not said what I clearly have said.
The way to get that last little line of dust off the floor is to wet a piece of paper, and sweep it up with that.
Of course, whether one does this or not is entirely voluntary.
I would not deny Sirs the FREEDOM to have a small line of dust on his floor.
A good example of 'Christian nationalism' would be the Christian Identity Movement. They seem to believe that God's true Chosen People are the English.
In other words , a complete change in approach at the point that one approach has reached the point of diminishing return.
In other words , a complete change in approach at the point that one approach has reached the point of diminishing return.
Okay. That makes sense.
The labor theory of value doesn't take into account the well-established law of diminishing marginal utility, which states that the value to the customer declines with additional consumption of the good in question.
http://search20.info.com/diminishing%20minimum?CMP=3525&itkw=diminishing%20minimum
http://ltcconline.net/greenl/courses/Indices/calculusIndex.htm#i
If relative standards of well-being do indeed matter more than absolute standards above a certain minimum threshold, then the fundamental microeconomic assumption of diminishing marginal utility will have to be reexamined.