TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Insulting Religion
Pages (7): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »

No, not really. His main "excuses" were German nationalism and the related belief in "racial purity" / eugenics.

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions No, not really. His main "excuses" were German nationalism and the related belief in "racial purity" / eugenics.

Those were (also) excuses, but he had support from the church because he used religious arguments. Gott mit uns.

The Nazis would still have done the same shit if you took away any reference to Christianity or God from their beliefs. Not so if you took away the nationalism and eugenics...

quote:

Originally posted by Znack For example. No one says that because Hitler was a Christian,

Um... Hitler was not a Christian. Sure, he was born to a Catholic mother but he stoped taking sacraments as a teen and eventually took on a form of Occultism as his religion. He did use pro-christian rhetoric in public addresses early in his career as a political tool and was supportive of the Church, also as a political tool, but he had intentions of ridding Germany of Christianing once it was no longer useful and pushing a return to Aryan Occultism. Claiming he was Christian is a pretty huge stretch. Moreover, your argument does not stand up... had he not used Christianity he would still have been able to use pan-germanic sentiment, nationalism, and racism (all of which featured far more prominately in his rhetoric then Christianity did) to accomplish his goals. It is probably more accurate to say that if the Church had taken strong opposition to Nazism then it would have been much harder for Hitler to obtain the support of a significant percentage of Germans; much the same as the communists in Poland faced a great deal of opposition from the fiercely Catholic populace who took their cues in rejecting communism from Rome.

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions The Nazis would still have done the same shit if you took away any reference to Christianity or God from their beliefs. Not so if you took away the nationalism and eugenics...

Yes. I Have not said otherwise. But he still used it as an excuse.

always enjoy your biblical analysis moral.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Um... Hitler was not a Christian. Sure, he was born to a Catholic mother but he stoped taking sacraments as a teen and eventually took on a form of Occultism as his religion. He did use pro-christian rhetoric in public addresses early in his career as a political tool and was supportive of the Church, also as a political tool, but he had intentions of ridding Germany of Christianing once it was no longer useful and pushing a return to Aryan Occultism. Claiming he was Christian is a pretty huge stretch. Moreover, your argument does not stand up... had he not used Christianity he would still have been able to use pan-germanic sentiment, nationalism, and racism (all of which featured far more prominately in his rhetoric then Christianity did) to accomplish his goals. It is probably more accurate to say that if the Church had taken strong opposition to Nazism then it would have been much harder for Hitler to obtain the support of a significant percentage of Germans; much the same as the communists in Poland faced a great deal of opposition from the fiercely Catholic populace who took their cues in rejecting communism from Rome.

Whether he really (was) a Christian is not something we would know for sure, because we can not read his mind, but it's basically completely irrelevant. The point is that he used Christian rhetoric and he had the church's support because he could find foundation for his ideas in the Bible.

If you can find support for evil deeds in a religious text, then the religious text is partially responsible for being used in that way. For example. when it says in the Quran that you should kill unbelievers, then the Koran is partially responsible if someone feels compelled to kill infidels, because he/she has read it there.

And i am not saying everything is bad.

Re: Insulting Religion

quote:

Originally posted by mr.bison

Skrillex Dub Step is more polemic than this video

Anyway, i think religion is control of life. This can ve very good for you or very bad.

I know some people that changed their lives (for a better life) because of religion.

Unfortunately, here in Brazil, there is some stupid human beings getting money from religious people and this pisses me off.

I respect people that take their religion seriously/with respect and i have the right to criticize religion because it's a choice like any other that you take in your life, people will criticize you or agree with you, so nothing wrong. Plus, this kind of discusion sometimes enlighten some minds

quote:

Originally posted by Znack Whether he really (was) a Christian is not something we would know for sure, because we can not read his mind, but it's basically completely irrelevant. The point is that he used Christian rhetoric and he had the church's support because he could find foundation for his ideas in the Bible.

Actually, the church did not oppose him because he took policy positions that were favourable to them not because he took theologically sound positions.

quote:

If you can find support for evil deeds in a religious text, then the religious text is partially responsible for being used in that way. For example. when it says in the Quran that you should kill unbelievers, then the Koran is partially responsible if someone feels compelled to kill infidels, because he/she has read it there. And i am not saying everything is bad.

You can't hold an idea responsible, even in part. You can't hold a book responsible, even in part. Kapital is not liable for the purging of the generals in the USSR, The White Man's Burden is not responsible for The Residential Schools abuse of Natives in Canada, The Catcher and the Rye did not lead directly to the murder of John Lennon, The Bible is not responsible for the hollocaust. Any attempt to argue to the contrary is absolute folly. Certainly, books can inspire deeds but you cannot credibly argue that a book is responsible for the deeds of a person.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Um... Hitler was not a Christian. Sure, he was born to a Catholic mother but he stoped taking sacraments as a teen and eventually took on a form of Occultism as his religion. He did use pro-christian rhetoric in public addresses early in his career as a political tool and was supportive of the Church, also as a political tool, but he had intentions of ridding Germany of Christianing once it was no longer useful and pushing a return to Aryan Occultism. Claiming he was Christian is a pretty huge stretch. Moreover, your argument does not stand up... had he not used Christianity he would still have been able to use pan-germanic sentiment, nationalism, and racism (all of which featured far more prominately in his rhetoric then Christianity did) to accomplish his goals. It is probably more accurate to say that if the Church had taken strong opposition to Nazism then it would have been much harder for Hitler to obtain the support of a significant percentage of Germans; much the same as the communists in Poland faced a great deal of opposition from the fiercely Catholic populace who took their cues in rejecting communism from Rome.

moral hazard knows.

a christian wouldn't murder or order the murder of jews.

quote:

Originally posted by Mattinsanity moral hazard knows. a christian wouldn't murder or order the murder of jews.

Yeah, I'm not saying that... just that this particular person ordering the murder of these particular jews wasn't a Christian.

wisdom on church signs *link clicky*

^ make your own ^

Re: Re: Insulting Religion

quote:

Originally posted by rdevito Unfortunately, here in Brazil, there is some stupid human beings getting money from religious people

Ou seja, eles são muito dos espertos, isso sim

Bem-vindo ao Chill-Out Room, fazia tempo que eu não via outro brasileiro por aqui

Hey, Moral have you read Confessions by Saint Augustine.

From the very brief knowledge I have on Saints, he seems the most interesting to me at this time.

If you have read or have knowledge on the book is it a.good read?

Re: Re: Re: Insulting Religion

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Ou seja, eles são muito dos espertos, isso sim Bem-vindo ao Chill-Out Room, fazia tempo que eu não via outro brasileiro por aqui

Translate please

quote:

Originally posted by Desiderata Hey, Moral have you read Confessions by Saint Augustine. From the very brief knowledge I have on Saints, he seems the most interesting to me at this time. If you have read or have knowledge on the book is it a.good read?

I've read confessions. Another cool church father to read is Origen.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Insulting Religion

quote:

Originally posted by Desiderata Translate please

quote:

Ou seja, eles s�o muito dos espertos, isso sim Bem-vindo ao Chill-Out Room, fazia tempo que eu n�o via outro brasileiro por aqui.

That is, they are smart asses, yes

Welcome to Chill-Out Room, had been a while since I saw another Brazilian here.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Insulting Religion

quote:

Originally posted by rdevito That is, they are smart asses, yes Welcome to Chill-Out Room, had been a while since I saw another Brazilian here.

Ah, coolness. How close is Brazilian to Spanish and Rican? As far as formal and as far as slang. Where I live people do speak Spanish but most of it is what is now coined as "Tex-MEX" It sounds very ghetto and do you have a term used for people that live in Brazil that speak it completely awkward, like a mix of formal with added made up words and phrases.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You can't hold an idea responsible, even in part. You can't hold a book responsible, even in part. Kapital is not liable for the purging of the generals in the USSR, The White Man's Burden is not responsible for The Residential Schools abuse of Natives in Canada, The Catcher and the Rye did not lead directly to the murder of John Lennon, The Bible is not responsible for the hollocaust. Any attempt to argue to the contrary is absolute folly. Certainly, books can inspire deeds but you cannot credibly argue that a book is responsible for the deeds of a person.

Such nonsense.

If a person said to another "You must go out and kill a lot of people", and the other person did it, then we would rightfully hold the first person partially responsible for it. Your actually saying, if the person had written it down instead of saying it, then he would suddenly be completely free from responsibility? Nonsense.

We have of course no direct access to the Bible's writers and visualizers, so it's hard to hold them accountable, but that does not change the fact that the Bible actually commands some bad deeds, and that people take it seriously - and that's all i mean. I hope your not thinking that I mean the actual physical book of paper and color is responsible and must be punished.

Its true that descriptive ideas can not be held responsible for anything, but the Bible is not descriptive, its normative. It tells people what they should do, and thus it can - or the instigators of it, which includes churches who propagate it - be kept partially responsible for people doing what they are told.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack Such nonsense. If a person said to another "You must go out and kill a lot of people", and the other person did it, then we would rightfully hold the first person partially responsible for it. Your actually saying, if the person had written it down instead of saying it, then he would suddenly be completely free from responsibility? Nonsense. We have of course no direct access to the Bible's writers and visualizers, so it's hard to hold them accountable, but that does not change the fact that the Bible actually commands some bad deeds, and that people take it seriously - and that's all i mean. I hope your not thinking that I mean the actual physical book of paper and color is responsible and must be punished. Its true that descriptive ideas can not be held responsible for anything, but the Bible is not descriptive, its normative. It tells people what they should do, and thus it can - or the instigators of it, which includes churches who propagate it - be kept partially responsible for people doing what they are told.

Sorry, I'm not buying it... ultimately someone has to make a choice to act on what they believe the command is or not. The interpretation of the meaning and the decision to act thereon is all on the individual. Should Salanger have been imprisoned because of Mark David Chapman? The clear answer is no, and the law would not allow for such a thing because books/authors cannot be held accountable for the actions of people.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Sorry, I'm not buying it... ultimately someone has to make a choice to act on what they believe the command is or not. The interpretation of the meaning and the decision to act thereon is all on the individual. Should Salanger have been imprisoned because of Mark David Chapman? The clear answer is no, and the law would not allow for such a thing because books/authors cannot be held accountable for the actions of people.

So you don't think there is such a thing as war crimes? A General is not responsible for what his troops do after they have been ordered? Hitler did nothing wrong as he personally did not murder a single jew?

Fortunately, most people disagree with you there, as well as almost all jurisdictions.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack So you don't think there is such a thing as war crimes? A General is not responsible for what his troops do after they have been ordered? Hitler did nothing wrong as he personally did not murder a single jew? Fortunately, most people disagree with you there, as well as almost all jurisdictions.

Let's try another drastic misinterpretation of a famous piece of work, so that you can start making distinctions about where blame may be assessed and where it shouldn't. Charles Manson believed "Helter Skelter" was a call to start a race war. He then ordered his followers to "Get witchy with it" when, in two separate home invasions, they slaughtered white families and attempted to stage the crimes as though black people had done them.





By your logic, the Beatles should have been brought up on murder charges.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack So you don't think there is such a thing as war crimes? A General is not responsible for what his troops do after they have been ordered? Hitler did nothing wrong as he personally did not murder a single jew? Fortunately, most people disagree with you there, as well as almost all jurisdictions.

That is an entirely different thing. Good try though.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.