PDA

View Full Version : Hitler, Religion, and Morality



LeBrok
19-10-13, 19:52
This thread was started after off topic discussion exploded in Greatest German Contributions to the World.

matbir
15-01-14, 01:16
Maciamo I feel strange if front of such antichristianism that you represents, ironically the rise of antichristian ideologies like national socialism in Germany and communism in Russia started killing spring of twentieth century which took lives of hundreds of millions of people in less than eighty years. I am not familiar with Karl Marx publications, so I do not know if brutality of communists was a direct results of them, but I cannot recognize him as philosopher because methodology used in his works was totally wrong which makes it unscientific. Otherwise Adolf Hitler as well could be considered as philosopher, which would be quite unfortunate.

Some people hate Christianity so much that they attributes to it untrue characteristic only to the deterioration of general opinion of it. Nevertheless facts shows that nowhere in the world expect of Europe thought and action evolved that way to support explorers, scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs at a time, and guess what religion was dominant in Europe during that time? And what religions were in other parts of the world where this have never happened?

nordicwarrior
15-01-14, 02:44
Maciamo I feel strange if front of such antichristianism that you represents, ironically the rise of antichristian ideologies like national socialism in Germany and communism in Russia started killing spring of twentieth century which took lives of hundreds of millions of people in less than eighty years. I am not familiar with Karl Marx publications, so I do not know if brutality of communists was a direct results of them, but I cannot recognize him as philosopher because methodology used in his works was totally wrong which makes it unscientific. Otherwise Adolf Hitler as well could be considered as philosopher, which would be quite unfortunate.

Some people hate Christianity so much that they attributes to it untrue characteristic only to the deterioration of general opinion of it. Nevertheless facts shows that nowhere in the world expect of Europe thought and action evolved that way to support explorers, scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs at a time, and guess what religion was dominant in Europe during that time? And what religions were in other parts of the world where this have never happened?

Excellent points.

I also think dictating what another person can and can't be regarding their religious belief/sciencific orientation seems somewhat arrogant. I can tell you as someone that was raised with no religious faith... life in Maciamo's mind set isn't a bowl of cherries (at least it wasn't for me).

Concepts like grace and forgiveness don't thrive in the hard, barren landscape of faithlessness-- again according to my personal experiences.

Aberdeen
15-01-14, 04:31
Maciamo I feel strange if front of such antichristianism that you represents, ironically the rise of antichristian ideologies like national socialism in Germany and communism in Russia started killing spring of twentieth century which took lives of hundreds of millions of people in less than eighty years. I am not familiar with Karl Marx publications, so I do not know if brutality of communists was a direct results of them, but I cannot recognize him as philosopher because methodology used in his works was totally wrong which makes it unscientific. Otherwise Adolf Hitler as well could be considered as philosopher, which would be quite unfortunate.

Some people hate Christianity so much that they attributes to it untrue characteristic only to the deterioration of general opinion of it. Nevertheless facts shows that nowhere in the world expect of Europe thought and action evolved that way to support explorers, scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs at a time, and guess what religion was dominant in Europe during that time? And what religions were in other parts of the world where this have never happened?

Actually, Hitler was a devout christian who frequently said that he was "doing the Lord's work". I know christians are generally in denial about that, but it happens to be true. I'm certainly not saying that Hitler was a typical christian - he wasn't. But he did consider himself christian.

Maciamo
15-01-14, 15:05
Maciamo I feel strange if front of such antichristianism that you represents, ironically the rise of antichristian ideologies like national socialism in Germany and communism in Russia started killing spring of twentieth century which took lives of hundreds of millions of people in less than eighty years. I am not familiar with Karl Marx publications, so I do not know if brutality of communists was a direct results of them, but I cannot recognize him as philosopher because methodology used in his works was totally wrong which makes it unscientific. Otherwise Adolf Hitler as well could be considered as philosopher, which would be quite unfortunate.


Hitler was a Christian (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/24010-Offtopic-Was-Hitler-a-Christian) and collaborated with the Vatican. Anti-Semitism has its roots in Christianity. Nowadays it's mostly Muslims who have taken over the anti-Jewish attitude.



Some people hate Christianity so much that they attributes to it untrue characteristic only to the deterioration of general opinion of it. Nevertheless facts shows that nowhere in the world expect of Europe thought and action evolved that way to support explorers, scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs at a time, and guess what religion was dominant in Europe during that time? And what religions were in other parts of the world where this have never happened?

I am not saying that other religions are necessarily better than Christianity. Islam is definitely worse because it promotes more vehemently violence against non-Muslims.

We could argue than Buddhism is better than Christianity, but it's not really a religion. It doesn't have any god, nor any dogma. I regard it as a kind of spiritual philosophy.

adamo
15-01-14, 15:13
Wasn't hitler the one who secularized German society thus eliminating all forms of religion other than this taste for Germanic mythology and runes?

epoch
15-01-14, 17:16
Hitler was not a devout christian and certainly not an ally of the Vatican. In februari 1931 the German bishops issued an edict that excommunicated leaders and members of the NSDAP. Read Ian Kershaw's book "Hitler" on it. Hint of the fierce struggle between can be found in Kershaws article for Der Spiegel on how Hitler won over the Germans:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html

The rift between Catholics and National-Socialists can even be seen in this map 1932 showing election results. It basically is a map of religions in Germany.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1081636,00.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Verbreitung_der_Konfessionen_im_deutschen_Rei ch.jpg

Maciamo
15-01-14, 17:32
Concepts like grace and forgiveness don't thrive in the hard, barren landscape of faithlessness-- again according to my personal experiences.

I have been to over 50 countries, lived in 9, including Japan, and I cannot think of any national, regional or cultural group more honest, kind and altruistic than the Japanese. Yet almost all Japanese are Atheists. There are two official "religions" in Japan, Buddhism and Shintoism, but neither has any concept of personal god or heaven like in monotheistic religions, and neither have any religious dogma or moral code. Japanese people receive no religious education at school either. Yet that does not prevent Japanese society to be one of the safest in the world, despite the fact that they have very big cities and high population densities, two factors that usually correlate with increased violence in other countries. Japan is a perfect example that people can be good to each others and peaceful without any help from moralistic religions like Christianity or Islam.

In Europe the most peaceful countries are Scandinavian countries, which also happen to be the least religious.

In the USA, the most violent states are usually also the most religious (Bible Belt). Louisiana, Mississipi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Georgia make up most of the states with the highest murder rates (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord). These are exactly the 7 most religious US States (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/state-states-importance-religion.aspx) according to a Gallup poll. In contrast, the states with the lowest murder rates also happen to be the least religious (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon). Still convinced that Christianity bring peace on Earth ?

Maciamo
15-01-14, 17:51
Hitler was not a devout christian and certainly not an ally of the Vatican. In februari 1931 the German bishops issued an edict that excommunicated leaders and members of the NSDAP. Read Ian Kershaw's book "Hitler" on it. Hint of the fierce struggle between can be found in Kershaws article for Der Spiegel on how Hitler won over the Germans:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html

The rift between Catholics and National-Socialists can even be seen in this map 1932 showing election results. It basically is a map of religions in Germany.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1081636,00.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Verbreitung_der_Konfessionen_im_deutschen_Rei ch.jpg

All it proves is that Protestant Germans voted more massively in favour of the NSDAP than Catholics. But that doesn't change the fact that Hitler was brought up a Catholic, and that as soon as he was elected in 1933 Hitler signed the Reichskonkordat with the Vatican that guaranteed the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany. Even though he didn't respect the terms of the treaty, why did he even bother to sign such a treaty if he didn't recognise the slightest authority to the Vatican ? It shows that he considered the Vatican important and respectable enough to meet the Pope in person and show respect, despite the fact that there was absolutely no need to do it. Hitler didn't even respect the heads of states of major European countries. Why would he care at all about the Pope if he had not harboured some feelings as a Christian. Personally, as an Atheist, I don't recognise the Vatican as a political entity at all. Most of the later disputes between Hitler and the Catholic Church were political and similar in nature to two political parties arguing in parliament, except that Hitler had the majority of the votes and won every time. But for such a debate to take place both parties need to be part of the same system. What would any non-Christian country have to do with the Vatican today ? Can you sincerely imagine the Chinese or the Japanese consider the Pope's opinion in their foreign policy ? What do they care, they aren't Christian. Hitler did care.

Angela
15-01-14, 17:57
Hitler was not a devout christian and certainly not an ally of the Vatican. In februari 1931 the German bishops issued an edict that excommunicated leaders and members of the NSDAP. Read Ian Kershaw's book "Hitler" on it. Hint of the fierce struggle between can be found in Kershaws article for Der Spiegel on how Hitler won over the Germans:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html

The rift between Catholics and National-Socialists can even be seen in this map 1932 showing election results. It basically is a map of religions in Germany.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1081636,00.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Verbreitung_der_Konfessionen_im_deutschen_Rei ch.jpg

I agree. I don't see how the actual scholarship on the issue can be refuted.

These Wiki articles provide very good links to primary sources from the time, as well as excellent historical treatments of the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/19/opinion/l-nazis-and-christianity-199125.html

Much of this "Hitler was a Christian" material that is found on the net, un-sourced or selectively sourced and polemically driven, is produced by apologists for Nazism or for Germany. In my opinion, these attempts to place Nazism within the mainstream of European development, or to find some less specifically German sources for it, are equally attempts to lessen the blame.

I would also recommend The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. A new edition has recently come out, because it is recognized that despite the fact that it was written soon after the war, the conclusions and the scholarship are still sound. The early sections of the book dealing with the prevalence of the old Germanic myths in the contemporary consciousness, and the almost total acceptance by the populace of the racist ideas common in the intellectual world of late 19th century Germanic circles, are particularly interesting, as is the obvious connection between these two things and the rapturous acceptance of National Socialism.

A great many people who haven't actually studied the period in depth can be very misled.

adamo
15-01-14, 18:07
You said that yourself Albanopolis's, not me. Would anyone know at what particular days or what time of day ftdna uploads it results?

LeBrok
15-01-14, 18:13
Maciamo is right, religions are not the source of morality in societies. Religious people can be as moral as atheists, or atheists can be equally immoral as christians or muslims. It is only a dogma of every religion that they stay on guard of morality, and without them society disintegrates. It is nothing more than protective mechanism, giving fake validity to a religious institution, and not because it is true. Same as with concept of god.
Scientists done experiments on animals about morality, and also we can look around at every country and compare morality versus religiousness level, and it all points to mostly genetic roots of morality.
Do you want to see true morality in nature? Look at ants. They work together, they care for their young, they build their nest together, they fight together to protect their colony, they give their lives fighting the enemy. Now, can someone tell me what religion ants belong to?
Do you want to see more morality and ethics, just look at this video how group of buffalo saves life of their member. I'm sure buffalo is not very religious either.
Start watching from 1 min 15 sec.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHBymm0UxNU#t=73
So why do they care?

adamo
15-01-14, 18:20
Those members are really moral Brok

Angela
15-01-14, 18:32
I have been to over 50 countries, lived in 9, including Japan, and I cannot think of any national, regional or cultural group more honest, kind and altruistic than the Japanese. Yet almost all Japanese are Atheists. There are two official "religions" in Japan, Buddhism and Shintoism, but neither has any concept of personal god or heaven like in monotheistic religions, and neither have any religious dogma or moral code. Japanese people receive no religious education at school either. Yet that does not prevent Japanese society to be one of the safest in the world, despite the fact that they have very big cities and high population densities, two factors that usually correlate with increased violence in other countries. Japan is a perfect example that people can be good to each others and peaceful without any help from moralistic religions like Christianity or Islam.

In Europe the most peaceful countries are Scandinavian countries, which also happen to be the least religious.

In the USA, the most violent states are usually also the most religious (Bible Belt). Louisiana, Mississipi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Georgia make up most of the states with the highest murder rates (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord). These are exactly the 7 most religious US States (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/state-states-importance-religion.aspx) according to a Gallup poll. In contrast, the states with the lowest murder rates also happen to be the least religious (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon). Still convinced that Christianity bring peace on Earth ?

Maybe if it were ever actually practiced...


Perhaps the Chinese would have a different view of the kindness of the Japanese as a people. Or perhaps the Mongols, or the Filipinos, or more specifically, in terms of China, the people who lived through The Rape of Nanking, if any still survive, or the inhabitants of Japanese prisoner of war camps.

Picking up the garbage, forming orderly lines, and being so 'adapted' to societal norms that one never breaks them, or perhaps so afraid of societal retribution in an authoritarian society that one never breaks them, which is probably the same thing, are not necessarily indicators of "kindness" or "humaneness". Neither, of course, are chaotic, very loosely organized societies, or what might appear so to outsiders, or at least very non-authoritative societies. You can get inhuman behavior in Germany, Japan, Sudan, or Rwanda. It's just better organized and industrialized in certain countries.

Frankly, and with all due respect for the many achievements of Japanese culture, I found the behavior of the Japanese people during the recent atomic power disaster rather disturbing. They should have been damn mad at their industrialists and their government leaders. To supinely accept these kinds of situations makes them perpetual victims of their own authoritative system.

As for the U.S., the violence is worst in urban, mainly minority cities. In my personal opinion, one which is increasingly accepted despite the "politically correct" push back, it is the collapse of the family which is largely to blame, and this collapse, while it has been encouraged by the practices of the welfare state, also owe a great deal to the collapse of the sexual morality which used to be enforced by traditional religious beliefs.

epoch
15-01-14, 18:39
All it proves is that Protestant Germans voted more massively in favour of the NSDAP than Catholics.

I sincerely doubt that, especially since the above mentioned 1931 edict. I have read this in more than one history book.


But that doesn't change the fact that Hitler was brought up a Catholic, and that as soon as he was elected in 1933 Hitler signed the Reichskonkordat with the Vatican that guaranteed the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany. Even though he didn't respect the terms of the treaty, why did he even bother to sign such a treaty if he didn't recognise the slightest authority to the Vatican ? It shows that he considered the Vatican important and respectable enough to meet the Pope in person and show respect, despite the fact that there was absolutely no need to do it. Hitler didn't even respect the heads of states of major European countries. Why would he care at all about the Pope if he had not harboured some feelings as a Christian. Personally, as an Atheist, I don't recognise the Vatican as a political entity at all. Most of the later disputes between Hitler and the Catholic Church were political and similar in nature to two political parties arguing in parliament, except that Hitler had the majority of the votes and won every time. But for such a debate to take place both parties need to be part of the same system. What would any non-Christian country have to do with the Vatican today ? Can you sincerely imagine the Chinese or the Japanese consider the Pope's opinion in their foreign policy ? What do they care, they aren't Christian. Hitler did care.

He needed the entire nation behind him. Since the Reformation and as recent as during Bismarck's Kulturkrieg - Hell, even in 1931 as the edict shows! - the German nation (or nations) were fiercely divided between Protestants and Catholics. I can't recall where I heard or read it but when asked why in the first days of the first World War the Germans went to the front so cheerfully some responded that at last the divisions were gone and all were united for the grand task. So. In order to unite the people (Ein Volk) of one nation (Ein Reich) behind one leader (Ein Fuehrer) he did this.

The Japanese did not need to: There wasn't a large and opposing Catholic number of people in their land.

epoch
15-01-14, 19:00
I have been to over 50 countries, lived in 9, including Japan, and I cannot think of any national, regional or cultural group more honest, kind and altruistic than the Japanese. Yet almost all Japanese are Atheists. There are two official "religions" in Japan, Buddhism and Shintoism, but neither has any concept of personal god or heaven like in monotheistic religions, and neither have any religious dogma or moral code.

There is a book about the involvement of Japanese Buddhists in the War and the atrocities of the Japanese in China: It's called "Zen at War".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War

It builds partly on a number of books by a Japanese Buddhist writer and master called Ichikawa Hakugen who tried to investigate the role of Buddhism in the war:



Hakugen points to twelve characteristics of Japanese Zen which have contributed to its support for Japanese militarism:[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVictoria2006171-174-6)



Subservience of Buddhism to the state.
Buddhist views on humanity and society. Though "Buddhism emphasizes the equality of human beings based on their possession of a Buddha nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_nature)",[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVictoria2006171-7) the doctrine of Karma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma) has also been used as a "moral justification for social inequality".[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVictoria2006171-7)
protection of the state and the hierarchical social structures.
Emphasis on sunyata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunyata) and selflessness, "leaving no room for the independence of the individual".[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVictoria2006172-8)
Lack of Buddhist dogma, which left no "compelling basic dogma a believer would fight to preserve".
The concept of on, "the teaching that a debt of gratitude is owed to those from whom favors are received".[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVictoria2006173-11) In the case of Japanese Zen, this gratitude was also owed to the Emperor, as "the head of the entire Japanese family".[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVictoria2006173-11)
The belief in mutual dependency, which "led in modern Japan to an organic view of the state coupled with a feeling of intimacy towards it".[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVictoria2006173-11)
The doctrine of the Middle Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_way), which "took the form of a constant search for compromise with the aim of avoiding confrontation before it occurred".[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVictoria2006173-11)
The tradition of ancestor veneration, in which "the entire nation came to be regarded as one large family in which loyalty between subject and sovereign was the chief virtue".[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVictoria2006173-11)
The value given to "old and mature things".[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVictoria2006174-12) Since society was based "on a set of ancient and immutable laws",[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVictoria2006174-12) oppostion to this was unacceptable.
Emphasis on inner peace, which "contributed to its failure to encourage and justify the will to reorganize society".[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVictoria2006174-12)
The Buddhist logic of Soku, "just as it is",[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War#cite_note-FOOTNOTEVictoria2006174-12) which leads to "a static, aesthetic perspective, a detached, subjective harmony with things".



Especially the lack of dogma is interesting, as we in Europe would call dogma the big cause for war.

Aberdeen
15-01-14, 19:15
Wasn't hitler the one who secularized German society thus eliminating all forms of religion other than this taste for Germanic mythology and runes?


No. Hitler mentioned his christian beliefs in Mein Kampf and once he acheived power, emphasized what he considered to be stable christian values, officially promoting the idea that the role of women should be limited to church, children and kitchen (although that wasn't always how things worked in practice during WWII).

Occult organizations were suppressed during the 1930s, except for those favored by some of Hitler's lieutenants, particularly Hess and Goering. Their organizations were tolerated, but Hitler himself rejected esotericism, particularly folkish esoterism. In Heinrich Heims' Adolf Hitler, Monologe im FHQ 1941-1944, Hitler is quoted as having said on 14 October 1941: "It seems to be inexpressibly stupid to allow a revival of the cult of Odin/Wotan. Our old mythology of the gods was defunct, and incapable of revival, when Christianity came...the whole world of antiquity either followed philosophical systems on the one hand, or worshipped the gods. But in modern times it is undesirable that all humanity should make such a fool of itself."

Of course, Hitler's idea about christianity were not orthodox. Hitler favoured theologians such as Ernst Bergmann, who wanted to purge christianity of what he considered to be false Jewish aspects. And Hitler did persecute some protestant theologians, but for political reasons. He also sometimes quarrelled with the catholic church, again for political reasons but neither Hitler nor the catholic church ever completely turned against each another.

Aberdeen
15-01-14, 19:21
IMO, religiousness or lack of religiousness doesn't determine morality. I suspect that in our modern developed world, atheists and agnostics are on average, somewhat better behaved than christians, but I suspect that has to do with thoughtfulness and levels of education, rather than faith or lack of faith. I've known lots of christians who were really good people, although they tend to often be thoughtful, well educated liberal christians. The rabid believers in anything are often jerks, IMO.

bicicleur
15-01-14, 19:29
Maciamo is right, religions are not the source of morality in societies. Religious people can be as moral as atheists, or atheists can be equally immoral as christians or muslims. It is only a dogma of every religion that they stay on guard of morality, and without them society disintegrates. It is nothing more than protective mechanism, giving fake validity to a religious institution, and not because it is true. Same as with concept of god.
Scientists done experiments on animals about morality, and also we can look around at every country and compare morality versus religiousness level, and it all points to mostly genetic roots of morality.
Do you want to see true morality in nature? Look at ants. They work together, they care for their young, they build their nest together, they fight together to protect their colony, they give their lives fighting the enemy. Now, can someone tell me what religion ants belong to?
Do you want to see more morality and ethics, just look at this video how group of buffalo saves life of their member. I'm sure buffalo is not very religious either.
Start watching from 1 min 15 sec.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHBymm0UxNU#t=73
So why do they care?

religion is an invention of rulers to justify their own position and to convince their subjects are one people with him as their sole ruler and protector

look at the bible, it's an invention of some Jewish king to motivate the Jews to unite and to fight the Filistines with him as their sole ruler

history is being distorted and fantasised in order to suit the proper story-telling

even today some still believe they are the only 'chosen people' and they can claim the 'promised land' for themselves only

you can make the same parallel with many other religions too

Angela
15-01-14, 20:10
IMO, religiousness or lack of religiousness doesn't determine morality. I suspect that in our modern developed world, atheists and agnostics are on average, somewhat better behaved than christians, but I suspect that has to do with thoughtfulness and levels of education, rather than faith or lack of faith. I've known lots of christians who were really good people, although they tend to often be thoughtful, well educated liberal christians. The rabid believers in anything are often jerks, IMO.

Maybe it's the circles I travel in, but I know a lot of well-educated jerks. :confused2: In fact, I don't think education is much of a factor either way. Nor does education affect the logic or objectivity of people's opinions. I gave up expecting more dis-interested logic from educated people than from uneducated people a long ago. Educated people are just able to make the arguments for their pre-determined opinions sound better.

Nor is the "jerk factor" much affected by atheism or superficial religious observance, by the way.

What *is* surprising to me, and this is not at all addressed to Aberdeen, is the fundamental lack of knowledge about religion, either in terms of the tenets of the various dogma, the history of various religions, both specifically and in the context of secular history, and the nature of spirituality as a whole. It doesn't stop people from having vociferous if vapid opinions about it, of course.

kamani
15-01-14, 20:12
Perhaps the Chinese would have a different view of the kindness of the Japanese as a people. Or perhaps the Mongols, or the Filipinos, or more specifically, in terms of China, the people who lived through The Rape of Nanking, if any still survive, or the inhabitants of Japanese prisoner of war camps.

Picking up the garbage, forming orderly lines, and being so 'adapted' to societal norms that one never breaks them, or perhaps so afraid of societal retribution in an authoritarian society that one never breaks them, which is probably the same thing, are not necessarily indicators of "kindness" or "humaneness".

agree. I've heard all kinds of stories about Japan being so hierarchical and obedience-driven that subordinate employees, minorities, and women are routinely humiliated in various indirect forms, and they have no means of reciprocation. Many Koreans in Japan are still differentiated from mainstream society even-though they have lived there for over 200 years and there is no noticeable difference. Japanese men rarely immigrate, somehow they equate that with accepting to be second-class (the same dish that they offer foreigners there). They might not be christian or muslim but they seem to have their own set of dished-out rules that they follow even more blindly.

epoch
15-01-14, 20:51
religion is an invention of rulers to justify their own position and to convince their subjects are one people with him as their sole ruler and protector
look at the bible, it's an invention of some Jewish king to motivate the Jews to unite and to fight the Filistines with him as their sole ruler
history is being distorted and fantasised in order to suit the proper story-telling
even today some still believe they are the only 'chosen people' and they can claim the 'promised land' for themselves only
you can make the same parallel with many other religions too

It is being estimated that Aboriginals arrived in Australia around 70.000 to 60.000 years ago. They were basically separated from the rest of mankind ever since. The religion of the Aboriginals has all the elements that modern religions have: Creation myth, Gods and spirits, an afterlife. Are you seriously trying to tell me that a number of "rulers" invented this - more than 70.000 years ago - and this invention to rule remains intact for over 70.000 years?

Aberdeen
15-01-14, 21:06
Maybe it's the circles I travel in, but I know a lot of well-educated jerks. :confused2: In fact, I don't think education is much of a factor either way. Nor does education affect the logic or objectivity of people's opinions. I gave up expecting more dis-interested logic from educated people than from uneducated people a long ago. Educated people are just able to make the arguments for their pre-determined opinions sound better.

Nor is the "jerk factor" much affected by atheism or superficial religious observance, by the way.

What *is* surprising to me, and this is not at all addressed to Aberdeen, is the fundamental lack of knowledge about religion, either in terms of the tenets of the various dogma, the history of various religions, both specifically and in the context of secular history, and the nature of spirituality as a whole. It doesn't stop people from having vociferous if vapid opinions about it, of course.

I do think that education, in the liberal arts sense, can often be a civilizing force, although it's not infallible.

I'm not quite sure how you've determined that people who disagree with your views on one particular religion lack knowledge about religion, whether christian or other. If you want to consider the views of atheists and agnostics to be "vapid", you're entitled to your opinion, but I've known many atheists and agnostics who know far more about religion than most religious believers. That's certainly not true of all unbelievers and sceptics, as bicicleur has just demonstrated for us, but I think it's generally true.

However, this is getting off the subject of the thread a bit. After due consideration, I decided that Germany's greatest contribution to the world is good beer, even though they have to share that glory with the Dutch and Flemish (who are, after all, sort of Germans). And maybe the Bavarian invention of Octoberfest should be mentioned.

Angela
15-01-14, 21:17
I do think that education, in the liberal arts sense, can often be a civilizing force, although it's not infallible.

I'm not quite sure how you've determined that people who disagree with your views on one particular religion lack knowledge about religion, whether christian or other. If you want to consider the views of atheists and agnostics to be "vapid", you're entitled to your opinion, but I've known many atheists and agnostics who know far more about religion than most religious believers. That's certainly not true of all unbelievers and sceptics, as bicicleur has just demonstrated for us, but I think it's generally true.

However, this is getting off the subject of the thread a bit. After due consideration, I decided that Germany's greatest contribution to the world is good beer, even though they have to share that glory with the Dutch and Flemish (who are, after all, sort of Germans). And maybe the Bavarian invention of Octoberfest should be mentioned.

You're assuming too much, Aberdeen. That was an equal opportunity put down, and, as I said, not at all addressed to you. The days when any decent number of Christians or Jews in western society actually knew anything at all about their religions are long gone. :smile:

But you're right, this discussion is off topic here.

epoch
15-01-14, 21:20
religion is an invention of rulers to justify their own position and to convince their subjects are one people with him as their sole ruler and protector
look at the bible, it's an invention of some Jewish king to motivate the Jews to unite and to fight the Filistines with him as their sole ruler
history is being distorted and fantasised in order to suit the proper story-telling
even today some still believe they are the only 'chosen people' and they can claim the 'promised land' for themselves only
you can make the same parallel with many other religions too

Let me make an analogy: Football was not invented to give the masses games to control them. Football was invented as a fun game. And even if mass sports are supposed to be a good way to control the population, it would never have worked unless the sports weren't so massively popular. And even if dictators like to use sports as a way to "give them bread and games" the outcome is never sure, as the existence of football riots in the former Soviet-Union may show.

Yet you want me to believe something that is similar to the idea that some one invented football to control the masses.

EDIT: Yes, this is getting off topic.

LeBrok
15-01-14, 21:43
religion is an invention of rulers to justify their own position and to convince their subjects are one people with him as their sole ruler and protector

look at the bible, it's an invention of some Jewish king to motivate the Jews to unite and to fight the Filistines with him as their sole ruler
Yes, the organized religion's main purpose was and still is (except few western countries) to unite groups or nations behind their leaders. Historically the strongest nations rose to dominance behind one monolithic religion. It didn't matter what it was called and how many gods it had, the important fact is that it was one and standing behind the leader, also legitimizing leaders as chosen by the gods or even descended from them. No wonder people were easily misled that gods were on their side, that they helped them conquer and kill enemies, take their land, made them special and superior. If you won a war it was mainly because it was a will of your gods.
Ones we have two or more dominant religions it is a good environment for a domestic war, and weakening the nation, till freedom of religion and tolerance had to be invented to keep peace in a multicultural nations.


history is being distorted and fantasised in order to suit the proper story-tellingThat's our romantic spirituality side. Also helpful for surviving, inspiring, energizing, also coping with death and suffering, and answering many questions the science wayback could address. As religion is mainly a cultural phenomenon, spirituality is mainly genetic.


even today some still believe they are the only 'chosen people' and they can claim the 'promised land' for themselves only This is an amazing documentary about evolution of god, particularly the God of Israel, a real eye opener.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yzpaIrTFMc
Some more here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28689-Favorite-Historical-Movies?p=418113&viewfull=1#post418113


you can make the same parallel with many other religions too Yes, because they have same purpose to unite the nation, to make people stronger as a group.

Times changed a lot during last hundred years, that's why Western Christianity religions are lost and trying to reinvent themselves. Being cut of from political game and economy (as vast land owners) what is left for them is the realm of ethics and morality. Pretty soon even this domain will be taken away.

nordicwarrior
15-01-14, 21:55
...
In Europe the most peaceful countries are Scandinavian countries, which also happen to be the least religious.

In the USA, the most violent states are usually also the most religious (Bible Belt). Louisiana, Mississipi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Georgia make up most of the states with the highest murder rates (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord). These are exactly the 7 most religious US States (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/state-states-importance-religion.aspx) according to a Gallup poll. In contrast, the states with the lowest murder rates also happen to be the least religious (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon). Still convinced that Christianity bring peace on Earth ?
Crime rates flucuate, but the states you've mentioned certainly do have a long-term problem with violence... however linking Christianity to violent areas simply does not fly. What about the Northern cities of Detroit and Chicago? I've lived all over the U.S. and I can tell you are missing the main cause of this crime. And that is the wholesale destruction of the family unit in minority/urban communities.

Whether or not this has anything to do with the for-profit prison industry that's solidly entrenched in the U.S.-- I can only speculate. Popular media (gangsta rap, glorification of drugs) has played a big role in the dismantling of the African-American family.

Also please don't pin this crime on racial tensions of the "Old South". I've found that blacks and whites relate far better to one another in the Deep South vs. the Northern States. When you interact with folks on a daily basis, colors seem to fade away. Most violence committed in the U.S. is between members of the same ethnic group.

skaheen15
15-01-14, 22:15
It is...BEYOND ignorant and absurd to imply that religion is necessary for a person to be 'moral', compassionate, forgiving, and all the rest. That is patently untrue, and, anyone who would deny that both scientific and overall social progress(universal suffrage, the idea of basic civil rights for all, widespread literacy, things like that) have grown in inverse proportion to the decline of organized religion, is living in la la land, sorry.

skaheen15
15-01-14, 22:17
There was a period where monotheistic dogma was the main organizing force of western society. We call it the 'dark ages' for a reason.

LeBrok
15-01-14, 22:42
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Angela http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=424330#post424330)

As for the U.S., the violence is worst in urban, mainly minority cities. In my personal opinion, one which is increasingly accepted despite the "politically correct" push back, it is the collapse of the family which is largely to blame, and this collapse, while it has been encouraged by the practices of the welfare state, also owe a great deal to the collapse of the sexual morality which used to be enforced by traditional religious beliefs.



http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/uscentury.gif
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/liars/usa.htm
Looking at this chart, especially recent sudden fall of homicide rates, one can argue that, crime rate is rather loosely connected to traditional family values.

New York rates show same trends too. In 2005 there was even less crime than in 1965.


New York Crime Index Rates Per 100,000 Inhabitants










Forcible

Aggravated

Larceny-
Vehicle


Year
Population
Index
Violent
Property
Murder
Rape
Robbery
assault
Burglary
Theft
Theft


1965
18,073,000
3,065.6
325.4
2,740.3
4.6
12.8
155.9
152.0
1,015.0
1,401.8
323.4


1966
18,258,000
3,338.1
342.6
2,995.4
4.8
13.4
164.8
159.6
1,074.2
1,568.7
352.5


1967
18,336,000
3,776.9
409.7
3,367.2
5.4
14.5
219.3
170.5
1,195.2
1,715.1
456.9


1968
18,113,000
4,579.3
543.9
4,035.4
6.5
14.0
330.5
192.9
1,385.3
2,071.1
579.0


1969
18,321,000
4,569.7
577.9
3,991.8
7.2
15.8
353.4
201.4
1,356.2
2,005.7
629.9


1970
18,190,740
4,971.3
685.0
4,286.3
7.9
15.8
446.1
215.2
1,470.4
2,125.0
690.9


1971
18,391,000
5,084.1
788.7
4,295.4
9.9
17.5
531.1
230.1
1,488.2
2,113.1
694.1


1972
18,366,000
4,380.9
754.3
3,626.6
11.0
22.9
470.4
250.1
1,306.1
1,748.3
572.1


1973
18,265,000
4,458.5
741.7
3,716.8
11.2
26.6
442.3
261.6
1,348.2
1,753.7
615.0


1974
18,111,000
5,034.0
803.0
4,231.0
10.6
28.9
479.3
284.1
1,500.9
2,155.4
574.8


1975
18,120,000
5,635.7
856.4
4,779.3
11.0
28.1
516.0
301.3
1,666.6
2,471.0
641.7


1976
18,084,000
6,225.1
868.1
5,357.0
10.9
25.8
529.3
302.1
1,763.5
2,855.2
738.2


1977
17,924,000
6,087.6
831.8
5,255.8
10.7
29.4
472.6
319.1
1,728.0
2,782.0
745.8


1978
17,748,000
5,792.2
841.0
4,951.2
10.3
29.1
472.1
329.5
1,650.6
2,628.6
672.0


1979
17,649,000
6,205.1
917.4
5,287.7
11.9
30.6
529.6
345.3
1,746.9
2,836.4
704.5


1980
17,506,690
6,911.6
1,029.5
5,882.0
12.7
30.9
641.3
344.6
2,061.6
3,060.4
759.9


1981
17,594,000
6,905.4
1,069.6
5,835.8
12.3
31.1
684.0
342.1
1,991.7
3,066.3
777.8


1982
17,659,000
6,468.1
990.1
5,478.1
11.4
29.2
610.7
338.7
1,671.9
3,025.3
780.8


1983
17,667,000
5,902.6
914.1
4,988.5
11.1
30.0
536.5
336.5
1,410.1
2,854.7
723.7


1984
17,735,000
5,577.3
914.3
4,662.9
10.1
31.6
506.9
365.8
1,257.2
2,755.1
650.6


1985
17,783,000
5,588.5
929.9
4,658.6
9.5
32.1
504.4
383.9
1,235.1
2,824.5
599.1


1986
17,772,000
5,767.7
985.9
4,781.8
10.7
30.5
514.1
430.6
1,221.1
2,923.5
637.2


1987
17,825,000
5,952.4
1,008.1
4,944.3
11.3
31.1
503.3
462.4
1,216.4
3,024.8
703.1


1988
17,898,000
6,309.3
1,097.3
5,212.0
12.5
30.6
544.4
509.8
1,218.3
3,133.8
859.9


1989
17,950,000
6,293.2
1,131.2
5,162.1
12.5
29.2
579.3
510.1
1,176.2
3,033.2
952.7


1990
17,990,455
6,363.8
1,180.9
5,182.8
14.5
29.8
624.7
512.0
1,160.7
2,979.4
1,042.7


1991
18,058,000
6,244.6
1,163.9
5,080.7
14.2
28.2
622.1
499.4
1,132.5
2,944.3
1,003.9


1992
18,119,000
5,858.4
1,122.1
4,736.3
13.2
28.4
596.9
483.5
1,068.2
2,735.8
932.3


1993
18,197,000
5,551.3
1,073.5
4,477.8
13.3
27.5
561.2
471.5
998.6
2,644.2
835.0


1994
18,169,000
5,070.6
965.6
4,105.0
11.1
25.9
476.7
451.9
906.2
2,489.5
709.3


1995
18,136,000
4,560.1
841.9
3,718.3
8.5
23.7
399.7
410.0
808.1
2,344.4
565.7


1996
18,185,000
4,132.3
727.0
3,405.3
7.4
23.0
340.0
356.7
713.9
2,197.0
494.4


1997
18,137,000
3,910.9
688.6
3,222.4
6.0
22.5
309.3
350.8
652.3
2,130.6
439.4


1998
18,175,000
3,588.5
637.8
2,950.7
5.1
21.1
270.3
341.3
576.7
1,998.9
375.1


1999
18,196,601
3,279.4
588.8
2,690.6
5.0
19.6
240.8
323.5
512.3
1,858.1
320.2


2000
18,976,457
3,099.6
553.9
2,545.7
5.0
18.6
213.6
316.7
463.4
1,796.4
285.8


2001
19,084,350
2,913.5
513.6
2,399.9
5.0
18.6
191.5
298.5
421.3
1,725.6
253.0


2002
19,134,293
2,807.1
496.6
2,310.5
4.8
20.3
191.6
280.0
400.9
1,662.1
247.5


2003
19,212,425
2,714.8
465.8
2,249.0
4.9
19.6
186.3
255.0
392.7
1,620.9
235.3


2004
19,280,727
2,632.9
440.4
2,192.5
4.6
18.7
173.8
243.3
366.7
1,613.2
212.7


2005
19,315,721
2,554.3
444.4
2,101.9
4.5
18.8
182.1
238.9
352.2
1,564.6
185.0


2006
19,306,183
2,487.6
434.9
2,052.7
4.8
16.4
178.6
235.1
355.1
1,531.1
166.4


2007
19,297,729
2,392.7
414.1
1,978.6
4.2
15.2
161.1
233.7
336.1
1,497.2
145.3


2008
19,467,789
2,394.3
398.3
1,996.0
4.3
14.4
163.0
216.4
336.6
1,530.5
128.9


2009
19,541,453
2,316.4
384.4
1,932.0
4.0
13.2
144.0
223.1
321.2
1,498.8
111.9


2010
19,395,206
2,352.2
394.4
1,957.8
4.5
14.4
147.6
227.9
339.5
1,511.9
106.4


2011
19,501,616
2,303.9
397.2
1,906.7
3.9
14.1
145.7
233.5
334.5
1,473.5
98.7


2012
19,570,261
2,328.8
406.8
1,922.0
3.5
14.6
146.4
242.3
329.9
1,503.5
88.6


http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm


For me crime rates are inversely related to economy and job prosperity than to family values. Don't take me wrong I'm a family man.

skaheen15
15-01-14, 22:51
Yeah, I think that crime in the rust belt cities has a lot more to do with the fact that their main sources of employment were taken away decades ago, than it does to do with religion or family values.

kamani
15-01-14, 23:11
For me crime rates are inversely related to economy and job prosperity than to family values.
True. Also agressive behavior as a lifestyle, is a sign of poor education or wrong type of education, which I guess is a side effect of poor economy and sometimes of radical ideologies. Both those factors coincidentally met in pre-Nazi Germany.

Baltic tribes
15-01-14, 23:20
Hitler was neither Christian nor atheist, but he was religious. He recognized Aryanism.
The idea is that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive race or subrace of the larger Caucasian race.
They identified the Aryan race in Europe as having five subtype races: Nordic, Mediterranean, Dinaric, Alpine, and East Baltic. Of which the most pure is Nordic.
Aryanism says that Jews descended from non-European races, and particularly what is classified as the Near Asian race (Vorderasiatische) more commonly known as the Armenoid race.
Aryanism claims that Slavs evolved from Aryans who intermixed with Mongols.
These and other ideas evolved into the term "Aryan race" to refer to what they saw as being a master race, which was narrowly defined as being identical with the Nordic race, followed by other sub-races of the Aryan race.
So, you can like or dislike but these are the points.

My question is: were Aryans truly the prototype race or tribe in Indo-European branch.
Did really some Aryans split, then intermixed with other groups and races and new sub-groups like Slavs or Armenoids evolved?
Cause if you look this way: if a white person intermarries dark or darker person, all such lineage of descendants is never going to come back to white. From white person by interbreeding you can create any race, thus probably any culture. But from dark person you can’t create white blonde no matter how much you are going to interbreed.
So, does it really not explain that white blonde Nordic people are the origin of our civilization, a source of all other races and sub-groups evolved on the planet? And if that it’s true, then master race term perfectly fits.
Or is it just genes mutation? If you want to use the last in your argument, make it compelling.:wary2:

skaheen15
15-01-14, 23:29
white blonde Nordic people are the origin of our civilization, a source of all other races and sub-groups evolved on the planet Um...what?

Aberdeen
15-01-14, 23:32
Hitler was neither Christian nor atheist, but he was religious. He recognized Aryanism.
The idea is that the original speakers of the Indo-European languages and their descendants up to the present day constitute a distinctive race or subrace of the larger Caucasian race.
They identified the Aryan race in Europe as having five subtype races: Nordic, Mediterranean, Dinaric, Alpine, and East Baltic. Of which the most pure is Nordic.
Aryanism says that Jews descended from non-European races, and particularly what is classified as the Near Asian race (Vorderasiatische) more commonly known as the Armenoid race.
Aryanism claims that Slavs evolved from Aryans who intermixed with Mongols.
These and other ideas evolved into the term "Aryan race" to refer to what they saw as being a master race, which was narrowly defined as being identical with the Nordic race, followed by other sub-races of the Aryan race.
So, you can like or dislike but these are the points.

My question is: were Aryans truly the prototype race or tribe in Indo-European branch.
Did really some Aryans split, then intermixed with other groups and races and new sub-groups like Slavs or Armenoids evolved?
Cause if you look this way: if a white person intermarries dark or darker person, all such lineage of descendants is never going to come back to white. From white person by interbreeding you can create any race, thus probably any culture. But from dark person you can’t create white blonde no matter how much you are going to interbreed.
So, does it really not explain that white blonde Nordic people are the origin of our civilization, a source of all other races and sub-groups evolved on the planet? And if that it’s true, then master race term perfectly fits.
Or is it just genes mutation? If you want to use the last in your argument, make it compelling.:wary2:

I always find this "Aryan" shit hilarious, because the Iranian speaking people who called themselves Aryans weren't exactly the colour of fresh snow. And yes, Hitler did call himself christian, but he had a rather eccentric idea of what it was about.

Aberdeen
15-01-14, 23:36
I suspect that one of the main causes of high crime and social breakdown is not poverty as much as economic uncertainty. A peasant family living in a low tech environment with very little in the way of material possessions but surrounded by relatives and friends usually is not a breeding ground of crime. But when children grow up without structure, often as a result of one or both parents losing their livelihood, the children often drift into petty crime and, once they get labelled as criminals, really commit to that kind of lifestyle.

Aberdeen
15-01-14, 23:50
I like your analogy, epoch. Just because tyrants have often seen a certain type of religious dogma or a certain type of religious practice as effective ways of controlling people doesn't mean that religion was created for the purpose of controlling people.

I think some people want religion as a way of explaining the universe to themselves because they're not comfortable with "I don't know" and others use religion as a way of coping with their fear of death. And some folks are genuinely convinced that non-visible energies and powers do exist in the world and use certain spiritual practices, often framed as part of religious belief systems, in order to try to communicate with and interact with those energies.

I think that it's the religious ideas that appeal most strongly to those who fear death that are easiest to exploit for purposes of controlling the masses. Some folk have speculated that Emperor Constantine decided to remove the legal sanctions against christianity and make it the official Roman religion because he thought that its emphasis on the afterlife and on deity would help to control people and obey their emperor. But even if that's true, he didn't invent christianity, he just made it a tool of government.

LeBrok
16-01-14, 00:41
Let me make an analogy: Football was not invented to give the masses games to control them. Football was invented as a fun game. And even if mass sports are supposed to be a good way to control the population, it would never have worked unless the sports weren't so massively popular. And even if dictators like to use sports as a way to "give them bread and games" the outcome is never sure, as the existence of football riots in the former Soviet-Union may show. Yet you want me to believe something that is similar to the idea that some one invented football to control the masses.
Why do people need sports, or even better, why people enjoy group sports?

When I look at football, or any groups sport, I can see two different tribes fighting, physically battling, running, throwing, etc, competing with each other with one goal in mind: to win, to dominate, to bring home bacon. Practically it is nothing more than what hunter-gatherers did for millions of years. Group of men running together after a common goal/prey, or group of men fighting other tribe to win the spoils of war and dominance. Also fans are nothing more than whole tribe pulling together behind their warriors and their tribe identity, a small scale nationalism if you will. Old HGs habits are still strong in us.
So it is true that football was not invented for higher social purposes. But once existed, it was taken over by a big business to serve purpose of building wealth for them and players. It works for fans, clubs and owners, so it is continued as such. Likewise first simple religions were not invented for purpose of centralised power, but only on grounds of human spirituality, but these first religions were quickly taken over by leaders as a good controlling tool of whole populous. Obviously it gave good results, making groups stronger, that's why it was continued in such form for millennia till pretty much present.

LeBrok
16-01-14, 00:56
Did really some Aryans split, then intermixed with other groups and races and new sub-groups like Slavs or Armenoids evolved?
Cause if you look this way: if a white person intermarries dark or darker person, all such lineage of descendants is never going to come back to white. From white person by interbreeding you can create any race, thus probably any culture. But from dark person you can’t create white blonde no matter how much you are going to interbreed.
So, does it really not explain that white blonde Nordic people are the origin of our civilization, a source of all other races and sub-groups evolved on the planet? And if that it’s true, then master race term perfectly fits.
Or is it just genes mutation? If you want to use the last in your argument, make it compelling.:wary2:
On contrary, the poves of bringing compelling evidence is on a person making extraordinary claims. Try proving your unbilivable claims.


So, does it really not explain that white blonde Nordic people are the origin of our civilization, a source of all other races and sub-groups evolved on the planet? Provide a proof that Egyptian, Babylonian or even Greek civilization, not mentioning Indian or Chinese, was started by Nordics, and they are source of other races.

skaheen15
16-01-14, 01:13
Hitler obviously was raised Catholic, and of course used religion as a PR tool in the NSDAP's rise to power, but anyone who has really studied the subject should know that he didn't take Christianity seriously as an adult, it's inaccurate to describe him or the Nazi movement as Christian. Christianity was definitely not part of the official Nazi philosophy, and was in fact discouraged to a large degree by the regime. The chief party ideologue, Alfred Rosenberg, was staunchly anti-Christian, as were Himmler, Bormann, Streicher, Hess, Eichmann, Darre, and most other key party figures, particularly in the SS. While it's obviously true that european anti-semitism historically had more than a little to do with Christianity, it really makes no sense for Pro OR anti-religious folk to use the Nazis as part of their argument, Nazi Germany was neither Christian nor atheistic as such, it was something else.

Aberdeen
16-01-14, 02:06
..........

Provide a proof that Egyptian, Babylonian or even Greek civilization, not mentioning Indian or Chinese, was started by Nordics, and they are source of other races.

Well, the ancient Greeks were caucasian, although I doubt that many of them were blond haired, blue eyed Nordic types. Also, I suspect that when Baltic tribes talks about the creation of civilization, he isn't talking about the petty stuff such as literacy, mathematics, astrology, philosophy, architecture or creating water treatment systems. He's probably talking about the really important stuff, like pastoralism and intertribal warfare.

ElHorsto
16-01-14, 02:35
I guess a religion which was so popular for so long time among "aryan europeans" and so important for national history (Holy Roman Empire, Crusaders) could not be completely rejected by Hitler without rejecting "aryanism" itself. He had to reinterpret it to make it more compatible. Christianly also ensured many conservative values, which were probably appealing for Hitler.

LeBrok
16-01-14, 03:47
Well, the ancient Greeks were caucasian, although I doubt that many of them were blond haired, blue eyed Nordic types. Also, I suspect that when Baltic tribes talks about the creation of civilization, he isn't talking about the petty stuff such as literacy, mathematics, astrology, philosophy, architecture or creating water treatment systems. He's probably talking about the really important stuff, like pastoralism and intertribal warfare.
lol, I have a feeling that he subscribes to someone's fantasies he read somewhere, that goes against archeology, written records, genetics and what's not. Now somehow it is our duty to disprove them. :confused2:

kamani
16-01-14, 05:59
I think Hitler did not know what to do with Christianity, that's why we get conflicting positions of him on this. On one hand as a philosophy for him it was: too old, too soft, too slow, and too Jewish. He needed faster and more radical ideologies for fast world domination. On the other hand, as previously mentioned, he could not abolish it without losing support from the German people. So guys beware of people who want old senile religions to go away, it is usually to replace them with something worse.

skaheen15
16-01-14, 07:21
The NSDAP was founded by a tradesman, I think a carpenter, mainly as a kind of para-socialist organization, but much of it's early membership was drawn from the Thule Society, a quasi-mystical racialist group with neo-pagan leanings and a decidedly anti-christian slant. I know this is how Rosenberg got involved, he had been a TS member. Certainly, many rank-and-file party members remained nominally Christian, but the overall bent of Nazi philosophy was towards a kind of ill-defined deism, with a Germanic pagan element. The SS, especially, developed it's own brand of 'nordic' mysticism. There was really no place for Christianity in any of this. The point I was trying to make is that the Nazis really shouldn't be part of the atheist vs. believers debate, and only ever are because of common misconceptions.

Maciamo
16-01-14, 10:50
I think Hitler did not know what to do with Christianity, that's why we get conflicting positions of him on this. On one hand as a philosophy for him it was: too old, too soft, too slow, and too Jewish. He needed faster and more radical ideologies for fast world domination. On the other hand, as previously mentioned, he could not abolish it without losing support from the German people. So guys beware of people who want old senile religions to go away, it is usually to replace them with something worse.

Germans did replace old, senile and corrupted Catholic Church by something more radical : Protestantism. It happened many centuries before Hitler lived, but Hitler was brought up as a Catholic and just underwent his own "Reformation" in adulthood.

No matter how you look at it, Hitler's ideologies were heavily influenced by the Christian mindset, Christian fears and Christian creationism. The very concept of "superior races" has its roots in Creationism. For an Atheist scientist like me, there are no races; humanity is just an immense palette of genetic variations that vary from individual to individual, even within the same family. There are as many combinations possible as they are ways of combining functional alleles in the genome (in other words quadrillions). Even if we decided to classify humans into categories, there would be millions of possible ways of classifying them based on all sorts of genetic variations. To give a very simple example, we could sort people by eye colour, but that wouldn't be just blue, green and brown. There are many kinds of blue eyes: light blue, dark blue, with a yellow ring around the pupil, with dots of brown in it... Then there are yellow eyes, hazel ones, green and hazel, light brown, dark brown, with or without rings around the pupil, etc. And that's just for eye colours, which can be explained by less than a hundred SNP's. If you start adding other traits, be them physical, psychological, medical or else, you get millions of possible combinations of categories and ultimately there is only a handful or individuals in each category, or sometimes even just one. That completely defeats the concept of race.

However, Creationist Christians don't believe in evolution, but believe instead that an Almighty God created the Universe and created the Earth and all its creatures, including humans, once and for all the way they are now. Only someone believe in such b*llshit can actually come up with the idea that races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others. It wouldn't make sense to a scientist who only sees the range of interpersonal variations between humans.

Not only in the concept of races and superior races deeply set in Creationism, the very prejudices against the Jews have their roots in Christianity. Jews have been discriminated against and persecuted by Christians since the Middle Ages, whereas Islam was originally more tolerant of the Jews (things have changed a lot since the creation of Israel). Hitler was just continuing a long Christian tradition.

Conclusion: Hitler was inculcated with Christian ideologies through his Catholic upbringing and inherited long established prejudices against the Jews from Christianity. Hitler got fed up of the Catholic's corrupted political system and got rid of most of it like the Protestants did. Hitler always believed in an Almighty God like Christians, Jews and Muslims, and he build a new religious ideology based on Creationist Theism, which legitimised his persecution of the Jews among the Christians in Germany (and other European countries were anti-Semitism was rife). The most important thing to remember is that Hitler was just one person, and that he could never have done anything without the support of a majority of the population in Germany. And it is undeniable that a majority of the population was Christian and his supporters saw no conflict between Hitler's ideologies and Christian ideologies.

NB : Hitler's neo-paganism was purely cultural, not religious. It was just for show, a kind of justification for Germanic militarism. Neither Hitler nor virtually anybody in Germany started believing in the power of ancient gods like Odin or Thor during the Nazi period. All remained strongly monotheist and were usually fairly typical Christians in their metaphysical beliefs.

gyms
16-01-14, 10:53
No,Maciamo!

Many authors see the roots of modern antisemitism in both pagan antiquity and early Christianity. Jerome Chanes identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism:


Pre-Christian anti-Judaism in ancient Greece and Rome which was primarily ethnic in nature
Christian antisemitism in antiquity and the Middle Ages which was religious in nature and has extended into modern times
Traditional Muslim antisemitism which was – at least in its classical form – nuanced in that Jews were a protected class
Political, social and economic antisemitism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment Europe which laid the groundwork for racial antisemitism
Racial antisemitism that arose in the 19th century and culminated in Nazism in the 20th century
Contemporary antisemitism which has been labeled by some as the New Antisemitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Antisemitism)

Chanes suggests that these six stages could be merged into three categories: "ancient antisemitism, which was primarily ethnic in nature; Christian antisemitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_antisemitism), which was religious; and the racial antisemitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#cite_note-Chanes5-79)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

epoch
16-01-14, 10:57
Why do people need sports, or even better, why people enjoy group sports?

When I look at football, or any groups sport, I can see two different tribes fighting, physically battling, running, throwing, etc, competing with each other with one goal in mind: to win, to dominate, to bring home bacon. Practically it is nothing more than what hunter-gatherers did for millions of years. Group of men running together after a common goal/prey, or group of men fighting other tribe to win the spoils of war and dominance. Also fans are nothing more than whole tribe pulling together behind their warriors and their tribe identity, a small scale nationalism if you will. Old HGs habits are still strong in us.
So it is true that football was not invented for higher social purposes. But once existed, it was taken over by a big business to serve purpose of building wealth for them and players. It works for fans, clubs and owners, so it is continued as such. Likewise first simple religions were not invented for purpose of centralised power, but only on grounds of human spirituality, but these first religions were quickly taken over by leaders as a good controlling tool of whole populous. Obviously it gave good results, making groups stronger, that's why it was continued in such form for millennia till pretty much present.

This is an adjustment of your theory that religion was invented for population control: You now state that religion was used as population control tool.

However, there are flaws in this theory too. One of the flaws being that religion may indeed have been considered as possible power tool; it hardly served that purpose well. Let us take Christianity as an example. Christianity was for centuries a resistance religion, a religion fiercely persecuted by the Romans. Once adopted by the local powers it proved hard to control, especially since much of its mythology - the Vitae of saints specifically - cherished the martyrs of that resistance. Emperors sought to control the church, the church - especially since it considered the empire bequeathed to itself after the fall of the latest West-Roman emperor - sought to control the emperors and both sought to control the popular movements. These popular movements that sprung from Christianity were rather revolutionary, as numerous heretical and semi-heretical movements in the Middle Ages show. The novel "The Name of the Rose" may be fiction but Umberto Eco did very good research for it, and you should read it to get an idea of the revolutionary spirit of several christian movements in the second part of the Middle Ages.

As another example may serve Thomas Becket, who was a loyal chancellor of Henry II Plantagenet. Henry appointed him Archbishop of Canterbury - this is the part that you may consider in accordance with your theory that powers try to rule via religion - in the believe that Thomas Beckets loyalty would remain to Henry. However, Thomas Becket found that he now served God rather than the king and became a very vocal moral critic of the king.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becket_controversy

Reading on mediaeval history you'll find far more examples. I conclude from this that while you can find elements of your opinion that religions were quickly taken over by leaders as a good controlling tool this is a gross simplification, if not a distortion, of history.

Maciamo
16-01-14, 11:31
My question is: were Aryans truly the prototype race or tribe in Indo-European branch.
Did really some Aryans split, then intermixed with other groups and races and new sub-groups like Slavs or Armenoids evolved?
Cause if you look this way: if a white person intermarries dark or darker person, all such lineage of descendants is never going to come back to white. From white person by interbreeding you can create any race, thus probably any culture. But from dark person you can’t create white blonde no matter how much you are going to interbreed.
So, does it really not explain that white blonde Nordic people are the origin of our civilization, a source of all other races and sub-groups evolved on the planet? And if that it’s true, then master race term perfectly fits.
Or is it just genes mutation? If you want to use the last in your argument, make it compelling.:wary2:

That's a pointless question because:

1) There was never one single ethnically unified Proto-Indo-European people. The Indo-Europeans were born out of several blending of populations. First, R1* people from North Asia mixed with European people (linked to Y-DNA I) during the Late Upper Palaeolithic. Then R1* split into R1a and R1b. R1b settled down in the Near East and mixed with various Near Eastern neighbours (including Proto-Semitic people). R1b then crossed the Caucasus and lived side by side with R1a tribes, and some intermingling did occur between the two (about 10-15% in each direction). Other Near Eastern populations from the Balkans and Carpathians were absorbed by both R1a and R1b tribes in the Pontic Steppe. From then on, the Indo-Europeans constantly intermarried with local women in all regions they invaded, be it in Europe, in Central Asia, or later in South Asia and the Middle East. In other words, each Indo-European branch became an ethnic group of its own, with only some partial, distant ancestry in common. The shared Indo-European ancestry of Europeans and North Indian Brahmins is only around 15% at best. Within Europe it is usually above 30% between the most distant Indo-European populations.

2) There isn't any population today that closely resembles Bronze Age Indo-Europeans, simply because they have mixed with other populations for the last 6,000 years. Likewise there isn't any population that is purely descended from Mesolithic Europeans or Neolithic farmers in Europe, although the closest are respectively the Saami (who also have considerable Siberian and Scandinavian admixture) and the Sardinians (who have some Mesolithic admixture). That is because they lived in geographic areas that were not easily reachable. The Indo-European homeland, on the other hand, was open steppe, which was invaded by more different people (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25619-5000-years-of-migrations-from-the-Eurasian-steppes-to-Europe) than almost anywhere else in the world in history. Actually, I believe that it is R1a tribes that eventually kicked out R1b tribes from the southern steppes and North Caucasus (probably during the Late Yamna and Catacomb periods).

3) It is a serious anachronism to think that the mutations for fair hair, fair skin and blue eyes originated with the same people. Blond hair is thought to have originated with R1a people in Northeast Europe, while red hair would have been more of an R1b feature. However, blue eyes originated in Palaeolithic Europe (haplogroup I). White skin originated in at least two different regions independently (different mutations) : a) in the northern Near East/Caucasus or Northeast Europe, and b) in East Asia (haplogroup NO). The fact that many northern Europeans combine these traits today is just the result of ethnic blending and environmental or sexual selection. What it proves is that Germanic people are far from pure and are indeed more quite a composite people in terms of ancestry. This is obvious from their Y-DNA haplogroup composition. Scandinavians are essentially a three-way blend of I, R1a and R1b. Germans are the same with more Near Eastern Neolithic lineages (E, G, J, T).

skaheen15
16-01-14, 11:32
The very concept of "superior races" has its roots in Creationism.



That is definitely true.

And I agree that, as far as Hitler is concerned, the neo-pagan blood-and-soil type stuff was show for the masses, who obviously remained Christian for the most part, but that certainly wasn't the case with Himmler, Rosenberg, and their ilk, who I think definitely were enthusiastic believers in the peculiar Nazi brand of mysticism. Of course, this thread is about Hitler, so let me stop there. :cool-v:

Maciamo
16-01-14, 12:04
No,Maciamo!

Many authors see the roots of modern antisemitism in both pagan antiquity and early Christianity. Jerome Chanes identifies six stages in the historical development of antisemitism:


Pre-Christian anti-Judaism in ancient Greece and Rome which was primarily ethnic in nature
Christian antisemitism in antiquity and the Middle Ages which was religious in nature and has extended into modern times
Traditional Muslim antisemitism which was – at least in its classical form – nuanced in that Jews were a protected class
Political, social and economic antisemitism of Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment Europe which laid the groundwork for racial antisemitism
Racial antisemitism that arose in the 19th century and culminated in Nazism in the 20th century
Contemporary antisemitism which has been labeled by some as the New Antisemitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Antisemitism)

Chanes suggests that these six stages could be merged into three categories: "ancient antisemitism, which was primarily ethnic in nature; Christian antisemitism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_antisemitism), which was religious; and the racial antisemitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#cite_note-Chanes5-79)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism


1. Ancient Greco-Roman racial anti-Semitism doesn't make much sense when one knows that Jews are genetically closer to Cypriots, Greeks and southern Italians than to anybody else, even in the Middle East. Anyway the Greeks and Romans regarded all foreigners as barbarians. The Romans did not hesitate to commit genocide even on Celtic tribes that were ethnically related to them. Actually in ancient times genocides were common practically everywhere, and is even recommended by the Old Testament (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/24753-The-Bible-condones-murder-rape-and-ignorance).

3. Traditional Muslim anti-Semitism is an oxymoron since Arabs are also Semitic people. The Koran does grant special protected status to the other people of the Book, namely the Jews and the Christians. Where Islam is intransigent is against pagans and Atheists. So Islam cannot be called anti-Jewish, even less anti-Semitic (obviously), but is clearly anti-pagan and anti-Atheist.

For the rest, anti-Semitism in Europe was always both religious and racial for the good reason that the term Jew conveys both religious and racial meanings. The two are so indissociable historically that it has become a real problem for modern Jews and for the Israeli state to define who is a Jew and who is not (http://www.economist.com/node/21559462). The problem is that 40% of American Jews are Atheists but still consider themselves Jewish, as an ethnic definition. In Israel, Jews come from so many different horizons and are so genetically different (e.g. Ethiopian Jew vs Russian Jew) that only religion unites them. If even today the Jews themselves can't agree (http://www.economist.com/news/international/21593507-competing-answers-increasingly-pressing-question-who-jew?fsrc=scn/gp/wl/pe/whoisajew) on what it means to be Jewish, how would you expect non-Jews in past centuries to know ? Therefore it is both mistaken and pedantic of this Jerome Chanes to try distinguish religious from racial anti-Semitism in European history.

The political, social and economic anti-Semitism is essentially the same as racial and religious anti-Semitism too. Socially the Jews were always excluded (or excluded themselves) from the mainstream European society. The reason was purely religious though, and the consequence was that they remained ethnically distinct from other Europeans. You can't separate the social from the religious and the ethnic. It's all one and same thing. Economically the Jews were richer because they specialised in jobs such as money lending that was traditionally prohibited to Christians. So once again they different economic status has religious roots. The political expression of anti-Semitism rose because of resentment towards this ground of people who were ethnically and religiously distinct and accumulated considerable wealth. No matter whether it was in the 18th, 19th or 20th century, political anti-Semitism was always caused by these three factors, who all have their roots, ultimately, in religion. So anti-Semitism in Europe was always a religious conflict, even in Nazism. You just can't separate racial Jewishness from religious Jewishness in anti-Semitism. If you can then please advise the Israeli state on who they should accept as new citizens.

adamo
16-01-14, 12:30
In what ways are Jews MORE closely related to Greeks, Italians and Cypriots than they are to other Semitic Arabs? I think it's the opposite, plus, you're ignoring a whole lot of paternal AND maternal European components in the latter two especially LOL. Jews are EXTREMELY related to nearby Arabic/Semitic peoples.

epoch
16-01-14, 12:46
The very concept of "superior races" has its roots in Creationism. For an Atheist scientist like me, there are no races; humanity is just an immense palette of genetic variations that vary from individual to individual, even within the same family. There are as many combinations possible as they are ways of combining functional alleles in the genome (in other words quadrillions). Even if we decided to classify humans into categories, there would be millions of possible ways of classifying them based on all sorts of genetic variations. To give a very simple example, we could sort people by eye colour, but that wouldn't be just blue, green and brown. There are many kinds of blue eyes: light blue, dark blue, with a yellow ring around the pupil, with dots of brown in it... Then there are yellow eyes, hazel ones, green and hazel, light brown, dark brown, with or without rings around the pupil, etc. And that's just for eye colours, which can be explained by less than a hundred SNP's. If you start adding other traits, be them physical, psychological, medical or else, you get millions of possible combinations of categories and ultimately there is only a handful or individuals in each category, or sometimes even just one. That completely defeats the concept of race.

But Christianity is transethnical in heart! The whole beef with Jews started with Paul, who thought that gentiles should be allowed to become Christians while maintaining their habits, versus a number of Jewish Christians who strongly believed that Christ came as a Jewish messiah.


However, Creationist Christians don't believe in evolution, but believe instead that an Almighty God created the Universe and created the Earth and all its creatures, including humans, once and for all the way they are now. Only someone believe in such b*llshit can actually come up with the idea that races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others

This is not a logical conclusion. Creationism does not lead invariably to the "races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others" nor does atheism prevent such believe.


Not only in the concept of races and superior races deeply set in Creationism

That is complete nonsense.


the very prejudices against the Jews have their roots in Christianity. Jews have been discriminated against and persecuted by Christians since the Middle Ages, whereas Islam was originally more tolerant of the Jews (things have changed a lot since the creation of Israel).

See above on apostle Paul. These prejudices did exist, however anti-semitisme is not the same as this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity



Hitler was just continuing a long Christian tradition.

Conclusion: Hitler was inculcated with Christian ideologies through his Catholic upbringing and inherited long established prejudices against the Jews from Christianity. Hitler got fed up of the Catholic's corrupted political system and got rid of most of it like the Protestants did. Hitler always believed in an Almighty God like Christians, Jews and Muslims, and he build a new religious ideology based on Creationist Theism, which legitimised his persecution of the Jews among the Christians in Germany (and other European countries were anti-Semitism was rife). The most important thing to remember is that Hitler was just one person, and that he could never have done anything without the support of a majority of the population in Germany. And it is undeniable that a majority of the population was Christian and his supporters saw no conflict between Hitler's ideologies and Christian ideologies.

No. Simply no. The reaction of gyms already explained. The "Jewish Question" had to do with the concept that if all peoples had the right on a nation to rule themselves, how should Jews fit in this. Nationalism being on the rise made this issue - or non-issue by modern standards - more and more poisonous.


For an Atheist scientist like me

I am not religious and do not believe. Yet I will never call myself atheist. Frankly, I am done with all -isms.

Maciamo
16-01-14, 13:55
But Christianity is transethnical in heart! The whole beef with Jews started with Paul, who thought that gentiles should be allowed to become Christians while maintaining their habits, versus a number of Jewish Christians who strongly believed that Christ came as a Jewish messiah.

That's a theological argument best left to theologians. If I didn't know about that I doubt that ordinary, uneducated folks in past centuries knew either. And therefore this argument could not have influenced much the anti-Semitic views of most of the population.




This is not a logical conclusion. Creationism does not lead invariably to the "races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others" nor does atheism prevent such believe.

I didn't say that Creationism invariably led to the "races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others". It said that Creationism was a prerequisite for it. If you have flour, milk, butter and eggs, you can make waffles, but you can also make pancakes, or just bread if you leave some ingredients. To get the concepts of "fixed races" and hence also "superior races", you need several ingredients and one of them is that God created humans in clearly separate races.

I didn't say that Atheism prevented the concept of racism either. Not all Atheists are well educated scientists - far from it. What prevent the concept of "superior races" is the understanding of evolution and genetics. However one cannot reasonably understand evolution and genetics and not be an Atheist. So all geneticists ought to be Atheists, but the reverse is not true (at all).


No. Simply no. The reaction of gyms already explained. The "Jewish Question" had to do with the concept that if all peoples had the right on a nation to rule themselves, how should Jews fit in this. Nationalism being on the rise made this issue - or non-issue by modern standards - more and more poisonous.


This point is moot knowing that "nations" were composed of vastly different people. Spain and France, for example, had the Basques, who always regarded themselves as ethnically distinct, just like the Jews. But Spain also has the Catalans, Galicians, Asturians... France has the Bretons, Corsicans, Alsatians... Italy has the Sardinians, Aostans, Tyrolians, etc. All these minorities were already known at the time. I don't see how the Jews were any different for the purpose of nation-states or the argument of ethnic purity. The only difference with the Jews was their religion. But even then, there has been a considerable minority of non-Christians in Europe (Atheists, Deists, Agnostics, Pantheists, etc.) at least since the Enlightenment.

gyms
16-01-14, 14:25
1. Ancient Greco-Roman racial anti-Semitism doesn't make much sense when one knows that Jews are genetically closer to Cypriots, Greeks and southern Italians than to anybody else, even in the Middle East. Anyway the Greeks and Romans regarded all foreigners as barbarians. The Romans did not hesitate to commit genocide even on Celtic tribes that were ethnically related to them. Actually in ancient times genocides were common practically everywhere, and is even recommended by the Old Testament (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/24753-The-Bible-condones-murder-rape-and-ignorance).

3. Traditional Muslim anti-Semitism is an oxymoron since Arabs are also Semitic people. The Koran does grant special protected status to the other people of the Book, namely the Jews and the Christians. Where Islam is intransigent is against pagans and Atheists. So Islam cannot be called anti-Jewish, even less anti-Semitic (obviously), but is clearly anti-pagan and anti-Atheist.

For the rest, anti-Semitism in Europe was always both religious and racial for the good reason that the term Jew conveys both religious and racial meanings. The two are so indissociable historically that it has become a real problem for modern Jews and for the Israeli state to define who is a Jew and who is not (http://www.economist.com/node/21559462). The problem is that 40% of American Jews are Atheists but still consider themselves Jewish, as an ethnic definition. In Israel, Jews come from so many different horizons and are so genetically different (e.g. Ethiopian Jew vs Russian Jew) that only religion unites them. If even today the Jews themselves can't agree (http://www.economist.com/news/international/21593507-competing-answers-increasingly-pressing-question-who-jew?fsrc=scn/gp/wl/pe/whoisajew) on what it means to be Jewish, how would you expect non-Jews in past centuries to know ? Therefore it is both mistaken and pedantic of this Jerome Chanes to try distinguish religious from racial anti-Semitism in European history.

The political, social and economic anti-Semitism is essentially the same as racial and religious anti-Semitism too. Socially the Jews were always excluded (or excluded themselves) from the mainstream European society. The reason was purely religious though, and the consequence was that they remained ethnically distinct from other Europeans. You can't separate the social from the religious and the ethnic. It's all one and same thing. Economically the Jews were richer because they specialised in jobs such as money lending that was traditionally prohibited to Christians. So once again they different economic status has religious roots. The political expression of anti-Semitism rose because of resentment towards this ground of people who were ethnically and religiously distinct and accumulated considerable wealth. No matter whether it was in the 18th, 19th or 20th century, political anti-Semitism was always caused by these three factors, who all have their roots, ultimately, in religion. So anti-Semitism in Europe was always a religious conflict, even in Nazism. You just can't separate racial Jewishness from religious Jewishness in anti-Semitism. If you can then please advise the Israeli state on who they should accept as new citizens.

The Israelite Exodus from Egypt, recounted in the Bible, tells of the oppression of the Israelites as slaves in Egypt, their flight from the country led by Moses and their journey through the wilderness before eventually settling in the "Promised Land".

Read more: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/egyptexodus.htm#ixzz2qYyzIbX6

The Babylonian captivity (or Babylonian exile) is the period in Jewish history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_history) during which Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew) of the ancient Kingdom of Judah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Judah) were captives in Babylonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia).
According to the Hebrew Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible), there were four deportations of Jews to Babylon: After the Battle of Charcamish during the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, Daniel and his friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were among young Jewish nobility carried off by Nebuchadnezzer to Babylon.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity#cite_note-1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity

epoch
16-01-14, 14:26
That's a theological argument best left to theologians. If I didn't know about that I doubt that ordinary, uneducated folks in past centuries knew either. And therefore this argument could not have influenced much the anti-Semitic views of most of the population.

The concept of the Christian world was very clear to everybody in the Middle Ages. The imperial orb is the very symbol of that.



I didn't say that Creationism invariably led to the "races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others".


I can't read anything else in this sentence: "Only someone believe in such b*llshit can actually come up with the idea that races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others".



It said that Creationism was a prerequisite for it. If you have flour, milk, butter and eggs, you can make waffles, but you can also make pancakes, or just bread if you leave some ingredients. To get the concepts of "fixed races" and hence also "superior races", you need several ingredients and one of them is that God created humans in clearly separate races.


But that is not true either. First, Christianity clearly states that all men were created equal. Secondly, the idea of superior and inferior races in the late nineteenth early twentieth century has its roots in social Darwinism, amongst others. The idea was that if species were created by evolutionary winnes and evolutionary losers the same could be said for peoples.



This point is moot knowing that "nations" were composed of vastly different people. Spain and France, for example, had the Basques, who always regarded themselves as ethnically distinct, just like the Jews. But Spain also has the Catalans, Galicians, Asturians... France has the Bretons, Corsicans, Alsatians... Italy has the Sardinians, Aostans, Tyrolians, etc. All these minorities were already known at the time. I don't see how the Jews were any different for the purpose of nation-states or the argument of ethnic purity. The only difference with the Jews was their religion. But even then, there has been a considerable minority of non-Christians in Europe (Atheists, Deists, Agnostics, Pantheists, etc.) at least since the Enlightenment.

But the Bretons, Corsicans, Tyrolians and whomever had homelands, to wit Brittany, Corsica, Tyrol and where ever. The Jews hadn't. The Zionists actually sought to find a homeland, the Soviet-Russians invented a homeland for Jews. National-Socialists, who defined the whole of history in terms of a colossal fight between "races" in which the winners would have natural right to rule over the losers, concluded from that lack of homeland that the Jews were the natural enemy of all of Europe since they wished to subdue it and use it as colony, just to get an enormous homeland.

The Nazi's persecuted Gypsies almost as fiercely as Jews just because they fitted the description of people without homeland as well. Gypsies were mostly Roman Catholics.

Nobody1
16-01-14, 14:28
The rise of the NSDAP is deep rooted in the events (aftermath) of WWI - the collapse of the German Empire (Kaiserreich) and the rising threat of Communism (Bolschewismus) topped with the incompetances of the Weimar republic;

Franz von Papen instigated Hindenburg (the president) to appoint Hitler as chancellor (Reichskanzler) in the times of turmoil after the 1932 (November) elections; And indeed Hitler was appointed Reichskanzler in January 1933 by Hindenburg - but the big blunder of this was that von Papen's grant plan was to actually control and contain Hitler and the NSDAP with that position; Didnt work out;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-S38324%2C_Tag_von_Potsdam%2C_Adolf_Hitler%2C_Paul_ v._Hindenburg.jpg

The NSDAP became the strongest party (winners de-facto ) in the 1933 March elections;

Election results 1924-1933:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/elect.htm

Baltic tribes
16-01-14, 14:53
Germans did replace old, senile and corrupted Catholic Church by something more radical : Protestantism. It happened many centuries before Hitler lived, but Hitler was brought up as a Catholic and just underwent his own "Reformation" in adulthood.

No matter how you look at it, Hitler's ideologies were heavily influenced by the Christian mindset, Christian fears and Christian creationism. The very concept of "superior races" has its roots in Creationism. For an Atheist scientist like me, there are no races; humanity is just an immense palette of genetic variations that vary from individual to individual, even within the same family. There are as many combinations possible as they are ways of combining functional alleles in the genome (in other words quadrillions). Even if we decided to classify humans into categories, there would be millions of possible ways of classifying them based on all sorts of genetic variations. To give a very simple example, we could sort people by eye colour, but that wouldn't be just blue, green and brown. There are many kinds of blue eyes: light blue, dark blue, with a yellow ring around the pupil, with dots of brown in it... Then there are yellow eyes, hazel ones, green and hazel, light brown, dark brown, with or without rings around the pupil, etc. And that's just for eye colours, which can be explained by less than a hundred SNP's. If you start adding other traits, be them physical, psychological, medical or else, you get millions of possible combinations of categories and ultimately there is only a handful or individuals in each category, or sometimes even just one. That completely defeats the concept of race.

However, Creationist Christians don't believe in evolution, but believe instead that an Almighty God created the Universe and created the Earth and all its creatures, including humans, once and for all the way they are now. Only someone believe in such b*llshit can actually come up with the idea that races are clearly defined and that some are superior to others. It wouldn't make sense to a scientist who only sees the range of interpersonal variations between humans.

Not only in the concept of races and superior races deeply set in Creationism, the very prejudices against the Jews have their roots in Christianity. Jews have been discriminated against and persecuted by Christians since the Middle Ages, whereas Islam was originally more tolerant of the Jews (things have changed a lot since the creation of Israel). Hitler was just continuing a long Christian tradition.

Conclusion: Hitler was inculcated with Christian ideologies through his Catholic upbringing and inherited long established prejudices against the Jews from Christianity. Hitler got fed up of the Catholic's corrupted political system and got rid of most of it like the Protestants did. Hitler always believed in an Almighty God like Christians, Jews and Muslims, and he build a new religious ideology based on Creationist Theism, which legitimised his persecution of the Jews among the Christians in Germany (and other European countries were anti-Semitism was rife). The most important thing to remember is that Hitler was just one person, and that he could never have done anything without the support of a majority of the population in Germany. And it is undeniable that a majority of the population was Christian and his supporters saw no conflict between Hitler's ideologies and Christian ideologies.

NB : Hitler's neo-paganism was purely cultural, not religious. It was just for show, a kind of justification for Germanic militarism. Neither Hitler nor virtually anybody in Germany started believing in the power of ancient gods like Odin or Thor during the Nazi period. All remained strongly monotheist and were usually fairly typical Christians in their metaphysical beliefs.

You didn’t get the point.
I’m not talking about religion, I’m not talking about haplogroups, I’m not talking about Hitler, I’m not talking who’s superior or who’s inferior. I’m talking about white and black rabbit and reasoning as to why black rabbit can’t in his lineage create white rabbit. And why white rabbit can in his lineage create black rabbit???
How can your useless haplogroups explain that?
For your and for everyone’s anatomical knowledge here, colour of eyes, hair or skin does not define race. For example, for Swedish southern Italian can appear as black. Colour of skin is a point of view . The same southern Italian in Nigeria would be called blonde (the last happened in front of my eyes).
Race is defined not by colour but by skeleton type, by bone structure. Skin colour you can change, as M.Jackson did, but you can’t change skeleton, at least for now. Anthropologists just by examining human skeleton can tell that man’s race without any haplogroup theory, skin colour or eyes colour

gyms
16-01-14, 14:57
I didn't say that Atheism prevented the concept of racism either. Not all Atheists are well educated scientists - far from it. What prevent the concept of "superior races" is the understanding of evolution and genetics. However one cannot reasonably understand evolution and genetics and not be an Atheist. So all geneticists ought to be Atheists, but the reverse is not true (at all).(Maciamo)

Atheism is accepted within some religious and spiritual belief systems, including Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism), Jainism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism), Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism), Raelism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raelism), Neopagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism_(contemporary_religions)) movements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_religious_movement)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-Neopaganism-19) such as Wicca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca),[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-Wicca-20) and nontheistic religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religions). Jainism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) and some forms of Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism) do not advocate belief in gods,[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-21) whereas Hinduism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) holds atheism to be valid, but some schools view the path of an atheist to be difficult to follow in matters of spirituality.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-22)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union

Tabaccus Maximus
16-01-14, 17:36
Crime rates flucuate, but the cities you've mentioned certainly do have a long-term problem with violence... however linking Christianity to violent areas simply does not fly. What about the Northern cities of Detroit and Chicago? I've lived all over the U.S. and I can tell you are missing the main cause of this crime. And that is the wholesale destruction of the family unit in minority/urban communities.

Whether or not this has anything to do with the for-profit prison industry that's solidly entrenched in the U.S.-- I can only speculate. Popular media (gangsta rap, glorification of drugs) has played a big role in the dismantling of the African-American family.

Also please don't pin this crime on racial tensions of the "Old South". I've found that blacks and whites relate far better to one another in the Deep South vs. the Northern States. When you interact with folks on a daily basis, colors seem to fade away. Most violence committed in the U.S. is between members of the same ethnic group.

I intended to reply, but it seems you have stolen my thunder N.W.

kamani
16-01-14, 17:41
If we want to get particular, then according to Christianity the "superior race" is actually the Jews.
-Jesus and the Old/New Testament are Jewish (some say New Testament was written around Greece, but it still talks 90% about Jews).
-In Christian doctrine it is repeated numerous times that the Jews are the Chosen People, the salt of the earth etc.
-Some Christian sects consider one of the functions of baptism that of being adopted into the tribe of Israel.

So how can you love Jesus and the Apostles and hate Jews?! How can you base your identity around a religion that talks about some other people and then hate those people; doesn't that sound like some sort of weird inferiority complex and/or identity theft.
Basically there has been so many layers of BS on top of one another throughout the ages, that it's hard to believe any ideology/philosophy without getting mind fu...

nordicwarrior
16-01-14, 19:12
...First, R1* people from North Asia mixed with European people (linked to Y-DNA I) during the Late Upper Palaeolithic...

This is conjecture and should be labelled as such.

LeBrok
16-01-14, 20:42
This is an adjustment of your theory that religion was invented for population control: You now state that religion was used as population control tool.
I would surprise myself if I said the former, if I did, I always meant the latter.


However, there are flaws in this theory too. One of the flaws being that religion may indeed have been considered as possible power tool; it hardly served that purpose well.
Let us take Christianity as an example. Christianity was for centuries a resistance religion, a religion fiercely persecuted by the Romans. My posts were directed at dominant religions being political powerhouses and serving as unifying force behind a leader, making nation united and stronger. I'm not sure why you want to discuss the beginning of christianity, or christianity in particular, when obviously it wasn't in dominant position yet? It was more destructive to unity of Roman Empire or Jewish people than anything.



Once adopted by the local powers it proved hard to control, especially since much of its mythology - the Vitae of saints specifically - cherished the martyrs of that resistance. It doesn't matter, they died for Christian faith and same god, a very unifying aspect for all faithful. How destructive was the cult of revolutionaries like Lenin of Stalin for unity of Soviet Empire?


Emperors sought to control the church, the church - especially since it considered the empire bequeathed to itself after the fall of the latest West-Roman emperor - sought to control the emperors and both sought to control the popular movements. Nobody says that relationship between christian church with kings and emperors were perfect, and it doesn't mean it didn't work well for both sides for most of the time. Obviously if a leader of a country is not a head of a church then we have two strong political centers, and a stage for conflicts. In many cases church was richer than kings and was biggest land and property owner in the country. Church controlled politics and kings, and was the controlling and ruling force for the whole society. To avoid this many leaders chose to separate from Vatican and became their church leaders at same time like king of England, Russian Tzar, and many others. In other cases monarchs and bishops realized that both sides gain more if they cooperate. Most of feudal history of Europe shows great cooperation of kings and bishops.
Kings went to war, and the troops were always blessed by priests: "In the name of God and the King". It doesn't matter if it is in Middle Ages, Germany WW2, recent Balkan war or Aztec Empire.



These popular movements that sprung from Christianity were rather revolutionary, as numerous heretical and semi-heretical movements in the Middle Ages show. The novel "The Name of the Rose" may be fiction but Umberto Eco did very good research for it, and you should read it to get an idea of the revolutionary spirit of several christian movements in the second part of the Middle Ages.
As another example may serve Thomas Becket, who was a loyal chancellor of Henry II Plantagenet. Henry appointed him Archbishop of Canterbury - this is the part that you may consider in accordance with your theory that powers try to rule via religion - in the believe that Thomas Beckets loyalty would remain to Henry. However, Thomas Becket found that he now served God rather than the king and became a very vocal moral critic of the king.
Of course religion have many more functions than political, centralized power, and control of populous, although these are more important forces for religions, being such powerful in history of humankind. Most of all, for ordinary citizens it is an outlet for their spirituality (genetic part of faith), to feel god. Furthermore, people go to the temples for social aspect of being and interacting with others, they sing, they pray, they talk intimately with gods about every little thing in life, they ask for help, they thank for everything, ask for good life after death, offer their suffering in good intentions, they ask for forgiveness and acceptance. From psychological point of view it is very therapeutic for any person. Also religious communities act as social net for the most unfortunate or anyone needing help.


if not a distortion, of history.
Can you explain what is the main cause for separation of state and church embedded in our modern constitutions?
Can you give examples from the past when kings went against church, and what were the consequences for them of such actions?
Why so many monarchs chose to become leaders of dominant religions in their countries, in Europe and around the planet?
What happened to king Tut in Egypt when he went against dominant religion?
Should we mention Teutonic Knights, ultimate power, as ruler, warrior, priest, rich land owner, and a spiritual leader.

PS. I'm not saying and never did that christianity as a religion is anything special, better of worse than others, in mentioned aspects, and as dominant religion.
PS. Here is what I mean by Spirituality.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28375-Beliefs-Spirituality-and-why-we-believe

Angela
16-01-14, 20:47
I don't want to write a dissertation here, or five separate posts, so I'm just going to respond briefly to a few of the points that have been raised. If someone wants citations, proofs, for each assertion, just ask for it:

@Epoch, I agree with virtually every single word you've written, so some of the following are just additional support for things you've already said.

@Maciamo,
That's not an accurate portrayal of the view of Evolution in Christianity. It's not even an accurate portrayal of the views of the Protestant sects in Christianity. Creationism is the view of certain rather fundamentalist, mostly American Protestant sects. There is absolutely no conflict between evolution and Catholicism. And I mean...NONE. Darwin and astronomy are routinely taught in Catholic schools and universities.

@gyms
An understanding of evolution is not a guarantee that one won't be a racist. Neither is being highly educated, and neither is being a scientist. People can see data from a very bizarre point of view which skews all their judgments. Much of the "scientific racism" that came to dominate Europe was in fact the product of late 19th century anthropologists, biologists, geneticists, and intellectuals from Britain and Germany. Those thinkers were in fact highly influenced by the work of Charles Darwin, from which they took the idea that some groups were more "fit" than others, and deserved to prevail.

Many, many scientists and doctors worked for the Nazis and even in those death camps...merrily taking skull measurements and performing experiments before they sent people off to the gas chamber.

Even today, some people skilled at least in the use of software pursue this branch of science specifically to support an argument about the superiority of "their" group of Europeans at the expense of other groups of Europeans. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room, which is the proliferation of "racial fora". Are we going to pretend that we don't know what they talk about all day?

I've even grown to be skeptical of research that comes from institutions in certain countries. If their interpretation of the data can be seen to have a racist or nationalist slant every single time, something is wrong. It might behoove people to investigate the published ideas of some of the scientists at these institutions as well.

@Kamami,
I think it is to a certain point indeed a case of identity theft. In the beginning there wasn't much difference between the Jewish believers in Christ and the Gentile ones, although the beginning of the tension can be seen in the fact that certain Jewish Christians wanted new followers to become part of the Old Covenant (i.e. undergo circumcision) before they could become part of the New Covenant with baptism. For much of those first centuries, you had Jewish Christian communities, mixed Christian communities, Gentile Christian communities, and the continuing development of what could be called Talmudic Judaism, which rejected not only the divinity of Christ and his status as the Messiah but also rejected him as a prophet.

So, as time went on, more animosity developed...sort of along the lines of how could you reject your own Messiah. Ignorant peasants acting out a Passion Play, with its depictions of the "Jews" shouting crucify him would start the ball rolling. Sometimes, local clergy fanned the flames. The fact that the Jews were the rent collectors for the middle and upper classes, and served as local bankers also came into play. Then, fueled by alcohol and the memory of the debts they owed the Jewish money lenders a couple of streets over, the local peasants proceeded to riot and take all their frustrations out on the Jews.. The local aristocracy, which also owed them a lot of money, sometimes encouraged, or at least did not prevent the riots. It was a nice way to clear the balance sheets.

It's pretty clear to me, anyway, that religious bigotry was only an excuse in many instances or at least just part of the motivation. Look at Spain, for example. The Visigothic rulers, lately barbarians and pagans, repealed many of the previous Roman Empire laws that gave the Jews a certain amount of autonomy and protection. No surprise then that it was claimed that the Jews supported the Saracen invasions. It's certainly true that they became an integral part of Islamic Spain, still treated differently, and suffering higher taxes etc., but safe, and able to participate in the culture. The nationalist Reconquista, whether out of revenge or as part of the stoking up of the kind of nationalistic fever necessary for a war lasting hundreds of years, made the "racial" cleansing of Spain of both Moors and Jews a priority. It was a process that went on for hundreds of years.

The plight of the Jews in northern Europe, whether or not people wish to acknowledge it, had a different flavor from that in the south. I'm by no means saying that Jews were not mistreated in Italy during the Middle Ages, for example. But the wholesale slaughter of the Jews that took place as the Crusades were about to get underway took place predominantly in the Rhineland. It was this mass slaughter, this barbaric burning of whole groups of men, women and children in their synagogues, or drowning them in wells, that created the bottle-necked population known as the Ashkenazim. Even in World War II, there were only certain areas where extermination camps could be built. Certain populations would not, in my opinion, have tolerated them, as the Nazis themselves admitted.

Perhaps some of the blame lies in the over-regulated, authoritarian nature of certain northern European societies...the group think that can become such a big part of these kinds of cultures. However, I think some of it can also be attributed to the fact that certain cultures emphasize more strongly than others the "oneness" of the large cultural group...which of course leads to more marginalization and mistreatment of "the other". In fact, identification as part of the group is built precisely in terms of "the other".

The other part of the pattern lies in the kind of Nordic myths that were so admired at the time. Just read them, or the lyrics to Wagner's operas. There's a reason why the Nazis wanted to promote them.

Finally, I think that the actions of the Nazis and their plans for Europe make crystal clear that the root of their anti-semitism had almost nothing to do with historical religious anti-Semitism. Just look at what they did to the Gypsies. That had nothing to do with religion. Most telling, investigators after the war found detailed plans to put into effect the mass extermination of the Slavs once they were finished with the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals. The goal was to free those vast plains for the industrious German people. "Land to live" It was permitted because Slavs too were seen as a lower breed of human. The irony in the fact that there is such a proliferation of neo-Nazi groups in eastern Europe is profound. Do they not know this? Or is this some pathetic attempt to prove that the Nazis were wrong about them? Bizarre in any case.

@gyms,
Obviously, I'm not very impressed by Jerome formulation of the issue. In most cases, I think it simplifies an extremely complex phenomenon. In the case of the Romans and Greeks I believe he just out and out got it wrong through a fundamental misunderstanding of Roman religion, or, indeed, the Hellenistic religions of the classical era. In both the case of the Hellenistic rulers of the Middle East, and the later Roman rulers, worship of the gods was tantamount to worship of the state. No one expected the populace to literally believe in the state religion in any spiritual sense, but they did expect token worship as an affirmation of allegiance to the polity. The stubborn Jews were the only organized group...until the emergence of one of their sects, Christianity, that refused to bend. In the name of their "One God" they placed their heads on the block by revolting first against their Hellenized rulers and then against the Romans. There was nothing ethnic or racial about the wars against them. It was just business...political business in this case.

epoch
16-01-14, 21:35
Can you explain what is the main cause for separation of state and church embedded in our modern constitutions?


Mark 12:17 ;P

On a serious note: You are a Canadian, and perhaps thus inclined to think that modern nations need separation of state and church in their constitution, as in the American constitution. While it has been quite important that the power of Rome over politics needed to be broken it may come as a surprise to you that the Scandinavian countries that served earlier as examples of well designed societies abolished state churches only in the last 15 years.

The initial idea was already alive during Roman times. When Rome became a republic it separated ius humana from ius divinia, and justice was spoken by judges rather than priests. That was done to make society run smoothly. That whole Roman concept of statehood was kept alive during the Middle Ages and in the renaissance. It was not an invention of Enlightenment, even if they championed it.



Can you give examples from the past when kings went against church, and what were the consequences for them of such actions?


Charles Martel confiscated one third of church property to secure the support of hardened warriors in his fight against the Saracenes. He won.
The Ottones appointed bishops in their empire on the premise that they were electors. At first they won, soon they lost.
Emperor Henry IV's walk to Canosse. He lost. Badly.
Henry Tudor broke away from Rome. He won.
The German princes during the 30 year war. They basically became the rules of their own realm (Cuius regio, eius religio) so they won, but at a horrible price.



Why so many monarchs chose to become leaders of dominant religions in their countries, in Europe and around the planet?


In Europe to break free from the political influence of the church of Rome.




What happened to king Tut in Egypt when he went against dominant religion?


I reckon we talk Achnaton? He lost. Allthough we don't quite know why he lost the popular vote.



Should we mention Teutonic Knights, ultimate power, as ruler, warrior, priest, rich land owner, and a spiritual leader.


But they didn't *rule* the Jerusalem kingdom. That kingdom, that was quite tolerant to it's muslim inhabitants, even hung a few because of their fanaticism.



Of course religion have many more functions than political, centralized power, and control of populous, although these are more important forces for religions, being such powerful in history of humankind. Most of all, for ordinary citizens it is an outlet for their spirituality (genetic part of faith), to feel god. Furthermore, people go to the temples for social aspect of being and interacting with others, they sing, they pray, they talk intimately with gods about every little thing in life, they ask for help, they thank for everything, ask for good life after death, offer their suffering in good intentions, they ask for forgiveness and acceptance. From psychological point of view it is very therapeutic for any person. Also religious communities act as social net for the most unfortunate or anyone needing help.

Exactly my point.

EDIT: One further point



Most of feudal history of Europe shows great cooperation of kings and bishops.


Not exactly. There indeed were times, such as during Pippinids, when this was true. But mostly the worldly rulers sought to break the church's power. If not by appointing bishops, then by supported anti-popes. There is a fascinating castle in Avignon that was a result of that.

Sile
16-01-14, 21:53
I have been to over 50 countries, lived in 9, including Japan, and I cannot think of any national, regional or cultural group more honest, kind and altruistic than the Japanese. Yet almost all Japanese are Atheists. There are two official "religions" in Japan, Buddhism and Shintoism, but neither has any concept of personal god or heaven like in monotheistic religions, and neither have any religious dogma or moral code. Japanese people receive no religious education at school either. Yet that does not prevent Japanese society to be one of the safest in the world, despite the fact that they have very big cities and high population densities, two factors that usually correlate with increased violence in other countries. Japan is a perfect example that people can be good to each others and peaceful without any help from moralistic religions like Christianity or Islam.

In Europe the most peaceful countries are Scandinavian countries, which also happen to be the least religious.

In the USA, the most violent states are usually also the most religious (Bible Belt). Louisiana, Mississipi, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Georgia make up most of the states with the highest murder rates (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord). These are exactly the 7 most religious US States (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/state-states-importance-religion.aspx) according to a Gallup poll. In contrast, the states with the lowest murder rates also happen to be the least religious (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon). Still convinced that Christianity bring peace on Earth ?

it is said that in Japan people are born with the religion of shintoism and die under buddhism. reason is Shinto has no after life. So people want an after-life and decide to change to buddhism.

Sile
16-01-14, 22:13
Under the Abrahamic Religions sit only , Christians, Moslems and Jews. Under their agreement these are noted as the only true religions, the rest are classified as Pagans ( buddha, hindu, shinto etc and ancient religions ). These Abrahamic Religions have been "fighting" to cleanse the world of these Pagans since ancient times.
The issue is the division and terminology.
Judaism should have moved over once Jesus appeared, and then Christians should have moved over over Mohammed appeared..........this is what the Islamics think ( they refer to Jesus as a messenger, like Mohammed , not as a son of god). This is what the "current religious war" is all about.

In regards to Aryan, as discussed on another thread, Hitler sent an expedition to Tibet ( Buddhism ) in 1936 to 1939 to discover if Aryans are basically buddists and with this declare an aryan people void of the current religions in Germany . With this finding he would have a means of replacing the Abrahamic religions of Europe and rule without religious pressures.

LeBrok
17-01-14, 00:05
Mark 12:17 ;P

On a serious note: You are a Canadian, and perhaps thus inclined to think that modern nations need separation of state and church in their constitution, as in the American constitution. While it has been quite important that the power of Rome over politics needed to be broken it may come as a surprise to you that the Scandinavian countries that served earlier as examples of well designed societies abolished state churches only in the last 15 years.

The initial idea was already alive during Roman times. When Rome became a republic it separated ius humana from ius divinia, and justice was spoken by judges rather than priests. That was done to make society run smoothly. That whole Roman concept of statehood was kept alive during the Middle Ages and in the renaissance. It was not an invention of Enlightenment, even if they championed it.
The idea of separation is not new, and it was always in favour when more need for tolerance was sighted as a positive force, as in modern countries of today. It doesn't negate the fact that dominant religion was always embraced to strengthen power of rulers, and unite nation behind them. Religion is a powerful force, it would be stupid for a ruler not to use it for an advantage. Of course as long as it is one dominant religion. It doesn't work in multi religious context without one being overwhelmingly dominant.




Charles Martel confiscated one third of church property to secure the support of hardened warriors in his fight against the Saracenes. He won.
The Ottones appointed bishops in their empire on the premise that they were electors. At first they won, soon they lost.
Emperor Henry IV's walk to Canosse. He lost. Badly.
Henry Tudor broke away from Rome. He won.
The German princes during the 30 year war. They basically became the rules of their own realm (Cuius regio, eius religio) so they won, but at a horrible price.
I reckon we talk Achnaton? He lost. Allthough we don't quite know why he lost the popular vote.

In Europe to break free from the political influence of the church of Rome.

Not exactly. There indeed were times, such as during Pippinids, when this was true. But mostly the worldly rulers sought to break the church's power. If not by appointing bishops, then by supported anti-popes. There is a fascinating castle in Avignon that was a result of that
These examples show how rich and powerful church was, and that it was easier to rule having church behind than against. Rulers were not against religion, but in many cited by you cases, not fond of foreign influence of Rome. They didn't only cut Rome off, but also conveniently made themselves a religious leaders to strengthen their position and wealth. What could have been more important reason of doing so?
They were all crowned by highest religious ranks of their churches to show people that god is with them and where their power comes from. A very convenient custom to legitimize themselves in eyes of ordinary people, the believers of same faith. We also have many examples of princes going in rugs on pilgrimage to Rome to beg Pope for forgiveness. Without church blessing they couldn't become kings.

Simple logic goes like this:
Since way back, dominant religions exerted strong political power, they influenced and commanded millions of believers. On top of it they were also the richest land and property owners, with tremendous economic power. It is only logical to conclude that in majority of cases rulers wanted to have such powerful organization on their side, isn't it? To the degree that in many cases these two powerful forces united under one leadership.
It is also understandable that sometimes (knowing human nature) this relationship was difficult, and if it got really sauer it lead to domestic war and ruin of a country. Other than that it was always in interest of both parties to support each other in leading the united populous and stay in power.

I would like to stress that it was only the case for countries with one dominant religion.



But they didn't *rule* the Jerusalem kingdom. That kingdom, that was quite tolerant to it's muslim inhabitants, even hung a few because of their fanaticism. Then they showed their true tolerance in Prussia, where they didn't need to share a country with other strong powers.

Baltic tribes
17-01-14, 00:07
In regards to Aryan, as discussed on another thread, Hitler sent an expedition to Tibet ( Buddhism ) in 1936 to 1939 to discover if Aryans are basically buddists and with this declare an aryan people void of the current religions in Germany . With this finding he would have a means of replacing the Abrahamic religions of Europe and rule without religious pressures.[/QUOTE]

The first sentence is correct. Sorry, but the rest is your assumption. He neither send anyone specifically to Tibet nor was his intention to replace something.
I like that film "7 years in Tibet" too. But Hollywood movies rarely reflect facts.

Sile
17-01-14, 01:03
In regards to Aryan, as discussed on another thread, Hitler sent an expedition to Tibet ( Buddhism ) in 1936 to 1939 to discover if Aryans are basically buddists and with this declare an aryan people void of the current religions in Germany . With this finding he would have a means of replacing the Abrahamic religions of Europe and rule without religious pressures.

The first sentence is correct. Sorry, but the rest is your assumption. He neither send anyone specifically to Tibet nor was his intention to replace something.
I like that film "7 years in Tibet" too. But Hollywood movies rarely reflect facts.[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938%E2%80%9339_German_expedition_to_Tibet

There have been allegations that one of the expedition's purposes was to determine whether Tibet was the cradle of the Aryan race. The taking of cranial measurements and making of facial casts of local people by anthropologist Bruno Beger did little to dissipate the allegations.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938%E2%80%9339_German_expedition_to_Tibet#cite_no te-29)

gyms
17-01-14, 16:21
A Christian martyr is a person who is killed for following Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity), through stoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning), crucifixion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion), burning at the stake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_burning) or other forms of torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) and capital punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment). The word "martyr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr)" comes from the Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language) word μάρτυς, mártys, which means "witness."
At first, the term applied to Apostles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs#cite_note-ODCC_M-1) Once Christians started to undergo persecution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_persecution), the term came to be applied to those who suffered hardships for their faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_martyrs#cite_note-ODCC_M-1) Finally, it was restricted to those who had been killed for their faith.

Atheist humanism!
.

toyomotor
19-01-14, 02:41
Hitler was not a devout christian and certainly not an ally of the Vatican. In februari 1931 the German bishops issued an edict that excommunicated leaders and members of the NSDAP. Read Ian Kershaw's book "Hitler" on it. Hint of the fierce struggle between can be found in Kershaws article for Der Spiegel on how Hitler won over the Germans:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/the-fuehrer-myth-how-hitler-won-over-the-german-people-a-531909.html

The rift between Catholics and National-Socialists can even be seen in this map 1932 showing election results. It basically is a map of religions in Germany.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1081636,00.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Verbreitung_der_Konfessionen_im_deutschen_Rei ch.jpg
No, Hitler was not an ally of the Vatican, but during WW2, the Vatican was an ally of Hitler. There are many examples of Nazi soldiers working in and with the full co-operation of the Vatican, including the infamous "Rat Line" which provided avenues of shelter and escape for Nazi War Criminals. In fact, I'm surprised that Hitler and the words Religion, and Morality (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29456-Hitler-Religion-and-Morality/page3) could be used on the same page.

MagnusAurelius
01-03-17, 19:44
Hitler was an occultist and also believed in a lot of alternative theories in addition to hidden knowledge etc.