Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 73 of 73

Thread: Hitler, Religion, and Morality

  1. #51
    Satyavrata Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,497


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by gyms View Post
    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:

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

    Chanes suggests that these six stages could be merged into three categories: "ancient antisemitism, which was primarily ethnic in nature; Christian antisemitism, which was religious; and the racial antisemitism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."[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.

    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. 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 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.
    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  2. #52
    Marquis
    Join Date
    10-04-13
    Posts
    2,120

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a1a3 (T-PF7443)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    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.

  3. #53
    Elite member epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779


    Country: Netherlands



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Not only in the concept of races and superior races deeply set in Creationism
    That is complete nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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/Circumc...y_Christianity

    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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.

  4. #54
    Satyavrata Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    9,497


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    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.

  5. #55
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-13
    Posts
    774


    Country: Sweden



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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.

    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. 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 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/featurestor...#ixzz2qYyzIbX6

    The Babylonian captivity (or Babylonian exile) is the period in Jewish history during which Jews of the ancient Kingdom of Judah were captives in Babylonia.
    According to the 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

  6. #56
    Elite member epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779


    Country: Netherlands



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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.

  7. #57
    Regular Member Nobody1's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-13
    Posts
    1,033


    Country: Germany - Baden-Wurttemberg



    1 members found this post helpful.
    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;


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

    Election results 1924-1933:
    http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...many/elect.htm

  8. #58
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-12-13
    Posts
    28


    Country: Lithuania



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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

  9. #59
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-13
    Posts
    774


    Country: Sweden



    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, Jainism, Buddhism, Raelism, Neopagan movements[19] such as Wicca,[20] and nontheistic religions. Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[21] whereas 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




    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecu...e_Soviet_Union
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisem...e_Soviet_Union





  10. #60
    Tabaccus Maximus Tabaccus Maximus's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-10-12
    Posts
    169

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - SRY 2627
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1a

    Ethnic group
    Galo-Germanic Atlantic Fringe
    Country: USA - Texas



    Quote Originally Posted by nordicquarreler View Post
    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.

  11. #61
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    20-11-12
    Posts
    562


    Country: Canada



    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...

  12. #62
    Banned nordicwarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-10-12
    Posts
    958

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1 (M253)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H

    Ethnic group
    European Mix
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    ...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.

  13. #63
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    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...why-we-believe
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  14. #64
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,235


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    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.

  15. #65
    Elite member epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    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.
    Last edited by epoch; 16-01-14 at 21:52. Reason: fixed my horrible latin..

  16. #66
    Regular Member Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,115

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    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. These are exactly the 7 most religious US States 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.
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  17. #67
    Regular Member Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,115

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    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.

  18. #68
    Advisor LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,295

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    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.

  19. #69
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-12-13
    Posts
    28


    Country: Lithuania



    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.

  20. #70
    Regular Member Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,115

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Baltic tribes View Post
    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...ition_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]

  21. #71
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-13
    Posts
    774


    Country: Sweden



    A Christian martyr is a person who is killed for following Christianity, through stoning, crucifixion, burning at the stake or other forms of torture and capital punishment. The word "martyr" comes from the Greek word μάρτυς, mártys, which means "witness."
    At first, the term applied to Apostles.[1] Once Christians started to undergo persecution, the term came to be applied to those who suffered hardships for their faith.[1] Finally, it was restricted to those who had been killed for their faith.

    Atheist humanism!
    .

  22. #72
    Regular Member toyomotor's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-12
    Location
    Tasmania
    Posts
    144

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    D2a1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H2a4

    Ethnic group
    Australian/Irish/European
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    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/...-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:Ve...chen_Reich.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 could be used on the same page.
    Last edited by toyomotor; 19-01-14 at 02:43. Reason: addition

  23. #73
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    11-06-16
    Posts
    11


    Country: Canada



    Hitler was an occultist and also believed in a lot of alternative theories in addition to hidden knowledge etc.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •