Greed, Debt and Matt Taibbi

[flintlock]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

As much as I may not like Obama, he at least lives in this century. If Romney is elected, I cannot see myself wanting to live in what is becoming a Christian theocracy. Even the DNC has adopted god into its platform officially now with the recent addition of the Jerusalem BS and 'God-given' rights. I might just pack up and move somewhere, but no clue where or how.



A politician will usually try to hide this as much as possible, but Romney practically oozes his corrupt, double-dealing nature from every pore. Politicians, while always suspect, can generally keep their nefarious dealings hidden. Romney, on the other hand, is plugging holes left and right to prevent the dam of lies from bursting. How much is he hiding beneath that extremely thin veneer of legitimacy that he still retains? Just how much of a crook is he that he can barely stem the tide?

ps. a year from now this post will be deleted by order of Herr Romney.

I think you've been watching too much MSNBC. Romney cares about POWER, not your eternal soul. In fact, this is the first time I've noted him connected with the Theocrats.
I thought he was in Wall Street's pockets. Now you tell me he's a holy roller. What's next? Someone finds his Hitler Youth uniform? But wait, Nazis were Atheist. Now I'm really confused.

The sooner we realize that, in the current system they are all crooks to some degree, the better. Nobody wins a Presidential election today without being backed by serious special interest money. So you prefer the trial lawyers run things? Turn off the mainstream media and filter out all the BS mud slinging that goes on in an election.

[BadJuju]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

I think you've been watching too much MSNBC. Romney cares about POWER, not your eternal soul. In fact, this is the first time I've noted him connected with the Theocrats.
I thought he was in Wall Street's pockets. Now you tell me he's a holy roller. What's next? Someone finds his Hitler Youth uniform? But wait, Nazis were Atheist. Now I'm really confused.

The sooner we realize that, in the current system they are all crooks to some degree, the better. Nobody wins a Presidential election today without being backed by serious special interest money. So you prefer the trial lawyers run things? Turn off the mainstream media and filter out all the BS mud slinging that goes on in an election.

I don't watch TV. I was talking in general about the state of politics in the US. Regardless, the Republicans are becoming more and more theocratic. And they are doing everything in their power to gradually turn the US into a state like Afghanistan. Romney is a Mormon and the Republican presidential candidate. As an atheist, I don't want to get rounded up and killed by a group of people that got lost somewhere in the 12th century or to have my future dictated to me by theocrats.

Like I said, I don't like Obama either. I don't like Democrats or Republicans; however, the Democrats are not quasi-Taliban like the Republicans are.

[vt]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

That is a totally baseless worry. There is separation of church and state in this nation. The U.S. is seeing fewer attending church than ever before.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof" The second part is just as important as the first.

[Raz]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

I don't watch TV. I was talking in general about the state of politics in the US. Regardless, the Republicans are becoming more and more theocratic. And they are doing everything in their power to gradually turn the US into a state like Afghanistan. Romney is a Mormon and the Republican presidential candidate. As an atheist, I don't want to get rounded up and killed by a group of people that got lost somewhere in the 12th century or to have my future dictated to me by theocrats.

Like I said, I don't like Obama either. I don't like Democrats or Republicans; however, the Democrats are not quasi-Taliban like the Republicans are.

Your misgivings are groundless and your assertions are nothing less than nonsense. The statement I bolded in red serves to wreck your credibility.

And by the way, atheists murdered more people in the last century than ten-thousand Inquisitions and a hundred Thirty-Years Wars.

[jk]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

although badjuju may have expressed his concerns in extreme terms, they have a germ of validity. this shows up,for example, in the way the abortion debate has been politicized and - even more egregious in my mind- the removal of evolution from public school biology texts, along with the persistent attempts to insert creationism into school curricula. evolution is an essential foundation for understanding modern biology. how can we compete globally if we can't teach bunches of our kids science?

[c1ue]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

But wait, Nazis were Atheist.

Actually the National Socialist party was officially against Catholics, but was for Lutherans and some of the other Protestant flavors. It also had its own version of Protestantism - so can hardly be called Atheist.

[Raz]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

Actually the National Socialist party was officially against Catholics, but was for Lutherans and some of the other Protestant flavors. It also had its own version of Protestantism - so can hardly be called Atheist.

Not so. The Nazis subverted the Lutheran church (Landskirchen) by installing Ludwig Mueller as "Reichbishof", his followers taking the name German Christians.



They were jew-hating racists and were condemned as heretics and neopagans by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church.
Eventually Bonhoeffer paid with his life for his orthodox stance against the Nazis.

Read Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives by Allen Bullock. It gives the most detailed narrative of these events available in any non-ecclesiastical work.

Its "version" of Protestantism had more in common with the Norse gods that anything remotely Christian. Hitler hated both Catholics and Protestants and planned to exterminate both as soon as the war was successfully concluded and he no longer needed pretense for propaganda purposes. He stated that "one cannot understand me unless one understands Wagner". That was hardly a statement of anything less than outright paganism.

[c1ue]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

Not so. The Nazis subverted the Lutheran church (Landskirchen) by installing Ludwig Mueller as "Reichbishof", his followers taking the name German Christians.

Note the term: Christians.

Yes, the Nazis did want their own flavor of Protestantism - like I said originally - but to call it pagan is more than a little bit too far. Whatever some of the Nazi party thought or what Hitler theoretically wanted, the reality was that the National Socialist party was outwardly Christian.

I'd also note that Protestantism is not like Catholicism - who is the final authority to say whether the "German Christianity" was in fact any more or less authentic than the cornucopia of other Protestant variants?

As for what the Nazis wanted to do eventually - it is far from clear what really might have happened given the hysteria of the latter (losing) years of World War II. You can see just as many bizarre doings in any other losing cause in war: Japan in WW II, the South in the US Civil War, etc etc.

[Raz]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

Note the term: Christians.

Yes, the Nazis did want their own flavor of Protestantism - like I said originally - but to call it pagan is more than a little bit too far. Whatever some of the Nazi party thought or what Hitler theoretically wanted, the reality was that the National Socialist party was outwardly Christian.

I'd also note that Protestantism is not like Catholicism - who is the final authority to say whether the "German Christianity" was in fact any more or less authentic than the cornucopia of other Protestant variants?

As for what the Nazis wanted to do eventually - it is far from clear what really might have happened given the hysteria of the latter (losing) years of World War II. You can see just as many bizarre doings in any other losing cause in war: Japan in WW II, the South in the US Civil War, etc etc.

You literally don't know what you are talking about.

[c1ue]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

You literally don't know what you are talking about.

Your comments would be a lot more credible if you could provide more substantive proof than what Bullock wrote about Hitler.

Yes, we all know about Hitler's Nietschean fetish. To extend this fetish to the entire structure of German government under National Socialism - this should be very easy to prove.

I'd refer you to this:

http://atheism.about.com/od/bookrevi...olyReich_2.htm

Alongside the Christian Nazis were a number of anti-Christian Nazis who sought to create a new, neo-pagan religion for the German people. These were, however, relatively few in number and their views were never officially endorsed by the Party or by Hitler. Slightly more common were anti-clerical Nazis who continued to accept basic theistic and Christian doctrines, but who repudiated churches and priests. This seems to have been a view gradually adopted by Hitler himself.

Isn’t it true, though, that Hitler sought to eliminate churches and Christianity from Germany? It’s been said that Hitler only spoke positively about Christianity in public because he had to in order to maintain support from the German people; in private, he admitted to his true hatred of all things Christian. This view is based upon allegedly private comments recorded in the book Hitler Speaks, but Steigmann-Gall argues that the balance of evidence indicates that these statements are probably forgeries and are regarded as such by many scholars.

• “The conspiratorial tone of this account of the “private” Hitler has convinced many church historians that Hitler was “a wolf in sheep's clothing,” anti-Christian to the core and from the outset of his career. The caricature Rauschning presents of Hitler’s ranting should alone have raised questions as to its authenticity; but the more troubling fact remains that Rauschning’s book stands completely alone in handing down sayings of this nature from this period.”
  
  

• “It is not for nothing that these factors should raise questions: Hitler Speaks is now considered to be fraudulent. As a recent biographer has put it, “Especially the chapter ‘Hitler in private’ ...‘is untrustworthy through and through — a product of war propaganda... [Rauschning’s] ‘conversations with Hitler’ are far-off fantasies." Moreover...Rauschning was too peripheral to the movement to have been part of Hitler's inner circle of confidants, as he consistently maintained.”
  
  

Sometimes people use passages from Hitler’s Table Talks to argue that Hitler was really anti-Christian, but even if the authenticity of this entire collection of reminiscences is acknowledged, there is far more ambiguity and pro-Christian commentary than is usually acknowledged. It would be surprising if Hitler had never said anything critical of churches, priests, and Christianity and so the existence of some negative quotes is expected. What matters most is the overall balance of his commentary — and that is indisputably pro-Christian and pro-religion.

The deliberate promotion of pagan beliefs was a minority within the Nazi Party. Alfred Rosenberg favored the creation of a new religion, but Hitler went so far as to threaten to take action against his book Mythus, and it was banned by some lower-ranking party organizations. Himmler was obsessed with ancient Germans, but Hitler dismissed this as ridiculous — and even Himmler insisted that Christian viewpoints be respected within the SS. At times he admitted that he was less anti-Christian than anti-clerical.


The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, by Richard Steigmann-Gall

One important point about all this which may be missed is the fact that these and other pagan Nazis never pretended to be anything else — they never affected a pro-Christian stance in public in order to win over the approval of the German people. When Nazis were pagan, it appears that they were unabashedly and enthusiastically pagan, without apology.

This makes it difficult to argue that other leading Nazis, like Goebbels, Goering, and Hitler himself, only pretended to be pro-Christian for the sake of public relations. If they had wanted to endorse a new paganism in Germany, they had ample opportunity. Instead, what we have are a few Nazis publicly endorsing paganism, but most Nazis publicly endorsing Christianity and all official party organs endorsing Christianity, right up to the official party platform.

Are you uncomfortable with the possibility of being Nazi and being Christian at the same time - at least in name?

[Ghent12]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

You literally don't know what you are talking about.

In most discourses, the term "Christian" is simply a label with disparate meanings depending upon the individual that uses it. I, for instance, like to use a "majority behavior" criterion which means that you must earn the label of Christian through your behavior--the majority of which must be like Christ's behavior as described in the New Testament. Individuals are free to label themselves as Christians, but they might or might not meet my particular definition. In other words, labels (or titles) should be earned or not used at all in my opinion.

[jk]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

In most discourses, the term "Christian" is simply a label with disparate meanings depending upon the individual that uses it. I, for instance, like to use a "majority behavior" criterion which means that you must earn the label of Christian through your behavior--the majority of which must be like Christ's behavior as described in the New Testament. Individuals are free to label themselves as Christians, but they might or might not meet my particular definition. In other words, labels (or titles) should be earned or not used at all in my opinion.

so if i want to know if someone is christian, i should write up a summary of their behavior and send it to you, ghent12? ;-)

[Polish_Silver]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

Romney's actions were not criminal, to my knowledge, just very unethical and inconsiderate.

I don't think others were so obviously careless of the well being of others. I think Obama, for example, actually believes he is doing the right thing.

[aaron]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

You literally don't know what you are talking about.

.

Hitler was a Christian. He claimed it. His people agreed. The various churches agreed. Just as some people might agree that George Bush is a Christian... because he claimed it and many people believe him. Only God really knows.

However, I do know that blaming Atheists for genocide is uncool.

[Raz]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

Your comments would be a lot more credible if you could provide more substantive proof than what Bullock wrote about Hitler.

Yes, we all know about Hitler's Nietschean fetish. To extend this fetish to the entire structure of German government under National Socialism - this should be very easy to prove.

I'd refer you to this:

http://atheism.about.com/od/bookrevi...olyReich_2.htm



Are you uncomfortable with the possibility of being Nazi and being Christian at the same time - at least in name?

Your ignorance on ANYTHING concerning orthodox christianity is clearly ascertained by anyone who has spent years studying it, not to mention living it.

One cannot deny the Incarnation and be a Christian in any historical, orthodox sense of the term. Neither can one develop some neopagan racial theory to sell to the "intellectual" masses and call it "German Christianity" - the Faith is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. You and everyone else are free to reject it, ridicule it and oppose it. But neither you nor the Nazis are free to reinvent it and claim it to be orthodox christianity. Are you comfortable being a chipmunk and a man at the same time - at least in name?
That makes as much sense as the question you posed.

I don't have a week or two to bring you up to a level of knowledge where you could engage in a reasonable discussion of the subject, and even that time-span wouldn't suffice
as you are apparently a person who enjoys arguing for the sake of argument and you are also apparently unable to ever admit being wrong. Cutting and pasting utterly ridiculous crap such as that you just posted above doesn't cut it. Try reading a few books such as Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D.Kelly for starters. Then read some Bonhoeffer. Or learn the difference between heresy and apostacy. I simply can't do that for you.

Believe whatever you want. I don't have weeks to waste on fruitless arguments with someone who knows nothing about the subject at hand - and isn't willing to learn for himself.

It would be like me arguing physics with Ash not having looked at a physics textbook in more than forty years.