Greed, Debt and Matt Taibbi

[lektrode]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

....arguing physics with Ash not having looked at a physics textbook in more than forty years.

whoa...
this is gettin good.
where has mr ash been anyway?

[FrankL]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

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.

just curious about how to interpret your comments...
*do you consider followers of the diverse protestant faiths to be Christians?
*what about those who reject things like the Trinity concept (they might consider it to be polytheistic, or they reject the god-like status of Jesus and consider him a normal but 'ascended' human being much like Buddha's position in Buddhism for example)

[Polish_Silver]

Nati Ideology

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.

A German who lived through this told me that the protestants of the northwest were the most enthusiastic supporters of Hitler. From what I have read, the Prussian military establishment was rather ambivalent towards Hitler. Many in the business class also disliked him. But they did not organize or take any decisive action.

Nazism was an eclectic and inconsistent set of beliefs. The beliefs were more chosen to motivate people and strengthen political and military power. Consistency and accuracy were not high priorities.

There was an aspect of anti-catholicism, yet the catholic church agreed to the "concordat".

Both Christianity and Nazism have a history of anti-semitism.

The Nazi's had various pagan beliefs and a racially based view of history, which had some pseudo-darwinian elements. Yet they were interested in the "Holy Lance", one of the most venerated christian relics.

[BadJuju]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

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.

Highlighting what I said does not refute it. The Republicans are doing everything in their power to take away any power a woman has over her body, which is a very common theme in places like Afghanistan. Homosexuals are not even seen as equal citizens to them, which is why they are doing all that they can to subvert and oppress them. It sounds just like the type of things a more mild Taliban would do. And given enough time and vested with enough power, I could easily see them becoming just like the Taliban, but with a Christian flavor.

Atheists are not a group, so you cannot even begin to blame them for any tragedies that have befallen people at the hands of an atheist. There is no codex of atheism that atheists rally around.

[cjppjc]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

Nothing gets these threads off topic quicker than religion.

[flintlock]

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.

Political support, yes. They could be pragmatists of course. They knew they could not erase centuries of Christianity overnight, but they basically eschewed any religion that might interfere with their plans for a greater Germany. Allied soldiers were constantly surprised to see Germans with " Gott mit uns" or "God is with us" on their belt buckles. But these were Wehrmacht troops. The Nazi affiliated SS troops wore a different buckle with a phrase that translated to " My honor is loyalty" instead.

Hitler was probably not literally an atheist, but he saw religion in terms of its ability to manipulate followers, not as any real belief system. Come to think of it, that is how a lot of others see religion!

[flintlock]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

.

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.

Who blamed Atheists for genocide? That's like saying Hitler was a man, therefore anyone pointing this out says all men are responsible for genocide.

[flintlock]

Re: Nati Ideology

A German who lived through this told me that the protestants of the northwest were the most enthusiastic supporters of Hitler. From what I have read, the Prussian military establishment was rather ambivalent towards Hitler. Many in the business class also disliked him. But they did not organize or take any decisive action.

Nazism was an eclectic and inconsistent set of beliefs. The beliefs were more chosen to motivate people and strengthen political and military power. Consistency and accuracy were not high priorities.

There was an aspect of anti-catholicism, yet the catholic church agreed to the "concordat".

Both Christianity and Nazism have a history of anti-semitism.

The Nazi's had various pagan beliefs and a racially based view of history, which had some pseudo-darwinian elements. Yet they were interested in the "Holy Lance", one of the most venerated christian relics.

Good post. Especially this,

Nazism was an eclectic and inconsistent set of beliefs. The beliefs were more chosen to motivate people and strengthen political and military power. Consistency and accuracy were not high priorities.

Like any Empire, the Nazis were not so stupid as to reject support from a group as large as the Christians in Germany. They would both persecute Christians and adopt Christian standards as it suited their cause. They understood full well the appearance of having a religious belief system to a largely Christian people. Something not limited to Nazis by the way. But in PRACTICE, the Nazi hierarchy for the most part, rejected accepted Christian behavior in their own dealings. I think history speaks for itself. But this by no means implies that the Nazis were the only group in history to do this.

This whole argument is off the topic anyway. I only brought it up to BJJ to encourage him to not judge people solely on their religious affiliations. Romney is a Morman. Hardly some zealot though. Obama says he is Christian. Does that mean Obama is in cahoots with the religious right to enslave the people? Because from what I know of Romney, he is about as concerned with that as Obama is. All politicians will adopt certain positions within their own party that will placate certain people within it and garner votes. I just think Romney is about as likely to pull off a religious takeover as I am to win an Olympic medal in swimming.

The US has a lot more pressing issues than all these social issues that I am convinced are thrown out there by both parties to confuse the more serious matters.

[flintlock]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

Highlighting what I said does not refute it. The Republicans are doing everything in their power to take away any power a woman has over her body, which is a very common theme in places like Afghanistan. Homosexuals are not even seen as equal citizens to them, which is why they are doing all that they can to subvert and oppress them. It sounds just like the type of things a more mild Taliban would do. And given enough time and vested with enough power, I could easily see them becoming just like the Taliban, but with a Christian flavor.

Atheists are not a group, so you cannot even begin to blame them for any tragedies that have befallen people at the hands of an atheist. There is no codex of atheism that atheists rally around.

Don't fear Badjuju. Only some Republicans even care about those issues. Even fewer Christians believe it is the state's duty to enforce those issues you mention. They may think its wrong, or will result in some dire punishment after life, but that is not the same as making it into law. And not everyone is Democrat or Republican. Neither speaks for me.

Besides, the numbers are with you. I seriously doubt if even half of voters genuinely give a crap about these issues either way. Most are too busy trying to raise their families or just get through life and it's struggles. Its always the rabid, politically motivated people that try and claim to speak for everyone on social issues. I'm not denying there are people out there that want to do what you claim, only that they are not all powerful. I have some of the same misgivings you do. But change comes very slow in our system. Its not going to happen overnight because some guy raised as a Mormon won an election. GW Bush was much more along the lines of what you claim Romney to be. And since he came along we have Gay marriage in some states and Abortion is still legal.

[flintlock]

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.

I agree. But I'm not always sure just caring is enough. Some of the better leaders in history have been real pricks.

[c1ue]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

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

I'd say that your view of what constitutes orthodox christianity isn't relevant given that we're not talking about orthodox christianity - i.e. Catholicism here.

Yes, Hitler was openly anti-Catholic. However, he was not anti-Christian - if you allow that Protestants are Christian. He certainly was not officially atheist. He was, however, a Jew hater. If, of course, you don't consider Protestants Christian either, then understandable that you would consider Hitler anti-Christian, though many/most of the German Protestants at the time clearly disagree.

Jew hating does not preclude being Catholic either - as the Inquisition clearly demonstrated in Spain.

Thus while I understand you have specific beliefs: i.e. that Hitler was anti-Christian, was pagan, was atheist, etc,, thus far I have yet to see any evidence to back them up.

I'd also point out that atheism is not paganism. Atheism in practice is the replacement of God with science, while in theory is the belief that there is no God. Paganism is more generally associated with older religions or religious practices ranging from mythology (Greek/Roman/Norse etc) to animal spirits (Japanese kami etc). Pagans believe in God, though there may be many of them and in many forms.

Thus equally ascribing Hitler to be an atheistic pagan is equally incorrect.

[jk]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

atheists just believe in 1 fewer god than monotheists. there are many gods that neither believe in.

[astonas]

Re: What is the meaning of Romney?

Don't fear Badjuju. Only some Republicans even care about those issues. Even fewer Christians believe it is the state's duty to enforce those issues you mention. They may think its wrong, or will result in some dire punishment after life, but that is not the same as making it into law. And not everyone is Democrat or Republican. Neither speaks for me.

I agree that it is a fringe minority that care deeply about some of these issues. The problem is that the Republican party platform these days is dominated by fringe groups of various sorts. The religious fundamentalists. The Tea-Partiers. The Birthers. In cases, even racists and bigots. The Republican party, based on numbers alone, needs as many of these groups as it can get to be fired up and voting, if it wants to win. So instead of focussing on the more moderate majority, it is being driven by its minority.

Democrats, too, are being driven by those narrow-interest bands that provide the money, or get out the vote. But they face different pressures, ever since Clinton introduced the notion of the "pro-business" liberal.

Besides, the numbers are with you. I seriously doubt if even half of voters genuinely give a crap about these issues either way. Most are too busy trying to raise their families or just get through life and it's struggles. Its always the rabid, politically motivated people that try and claim to speak for everyone on social issues. I'm not denying there are people out there that want to do what you claim, only that they are not all powerful. I have some of the same misgivings you do. But change comes very slow in our system. Its not going to happen overnight because some guy raised as a Mormon won an election. GW Bush was much more along the lines of what you claim Romney to be. And since he came along we have Gay marriage in some states and Abortion is still legal.

It is precisely because of the structure of the numbers that the Republican party is digging in its heels, and becoming more adamant on these issues. The majority of the country is pro-choice, and as the older generations are replaced by younger people, this trend is growing. Similarly with gay marriage: it is overwhelmingly supported by the young, though rejected by older individuals. So Republican politicians have to really fire up their "base" if they want to continue to be relevant, even as the views of that group become increasingly archaic.

In the end, however, the G.O.P. will likely have to spend a few years in the political wilderness. If not after this election, then after a few more cycles, they will recede until they choose which of their current platform issues will have to adjust to the changing times. And some of their more fringe followers will be absolutely livid, having shifted suddenly from being the most-catered-to part of the party, to being rejected by it entirely. It will be the final throes in the slow demise of Nixon's Southern Strategy. I wonder what will replace it.

It is going to be an interesting time.