Religion
Related: About this forumCorruption, Duplicitousness, and Lying are Important Christian Values, Apparently.
If you look at many of those who represent themselves as the teachers and leaders of Christianity, I can draw no other conclusion.
It gives one pause, or it should, at least.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)They just won't admit to it in public. I guess this hypocrisy is more associated with the Mormons but I have had some personal experience with it from white right fundies.
cult tactics for proselytizing...
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Jesus didn't much like the corruption in the temple, threw a bunch of money changers out, I recall. The ninth commandment is not a suggestion, for that matter. Soooooo......
Don't blame Christianity for lying and corruption...... people who FAIL TO obey Christian commandments and who FAIL TO live up to Christian values.
You once bragged that you memorized Matthew. So you know that Jesus took a stand against corruption. Now you are trying to tell us a big yarn, that lying and corruption is an important Christian value.
duplicitous. adjective. Given to or marked by deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Why, there's a post about one right here in the Religion Group. So, are those people not Christians. They claim to be, and are very successful. Do you repudiate them? I've never seen you or any other purported Christian in this group repudiate any self-styled Christian leader.
So, I know what I see. I know what I have seen for over 50 years. Since I'm not a Christian, I don't decide who is and who is not a Christian. Lacking other Christians repudiating these people, what am I to believe?
You're not making a lot of sense with your criticism of me, really.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You say....."Corruption, Duplicitousness, and Lying are Important Christian Values, Apparently.
If you look at many of those who represent themselves as the teachers and leaders of Christianity, I can draw no other conclusion"
Bullshit.
These aren't Christian values. The Ninth Commandment (not a suggestion) condemns lying. And corruption is attacked time and time again in the Bible.
Those who lie and are corrupt are NOT following the word of Christ nor do they follow his path in so doing.
If you were someone who is ignorant of the Bible, I could excuse you. But you are the one who bragged about memorizing Matthew. The whole enchilada. Oh wise one......
And, my posts, which themselves are a repudiation of these self-styled religious leaders....are repudiated by you.
Donald Trump is the most un-Christian man, probably in a century, or more. Yet this ass hole is worshiped by some of these same leaders. This is reprehensible and hypocritical.
Tell you what, attack these right wing renegade evangelicals for being hypocrites and I would stand by you and agree with you! But that is not your style. You just cannot help yourself. You have a vendetta against Christianity and you have to twist things to fit your vendetta.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)in reference to prominent Christians who are all three of those things. They represent Christianity, openly and very successfully. They are, APPARENTLY Christian representatives.
Please read for understanding, not just for words.
Now, please bother someone else. You completely missed my point.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Seems pretty clear what you said.
Now you are trying to back track.
I understand why you would want to back track
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)and their success, I can draw no other conclusion.
I'm not back-tracking in any way. I'll say it again:
Based on many of those who represent Christianity, I conclude that corruption, duplicitousness and lying must be fundamental values of Christianity.
Your beef is not with me. It should be with those who you think misrepresent Christianity. It's not my job, as a non-Christian, to decide who is and who is not a Christian. I go by the clear evidence I see when deciding what Christianity really is, as practiced today.
Again, please bother someone else. You're not reading what I'm writing, and you're wasting my time.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)and corruption, there is certainly a lot of biblical evidence to refute your generalization. As in, as pointed out, the Ten Commandments.
The right wing nuts who are spreading lies and worship Trump and his corruption......I believe that their dishonesty and their own corruption speaks for itself. However, it is contradictory to the Bible they pretend to support....so we have hypocrisy.
So if you want to attack hypocrisy, I will agree with you and support you. But if you are seriously trying to say the Ninth Commandment doesn't say we shouldn't lie, and that the Bible does not speak against corruption....well, let's just say you are entitled to whatever wacked out interpretation you care to dream up about the faith you love to hate.
Now if you don't want to talk about hypocrisy....and you just want to get into your little circle and snipe about Christianity....well, go ahead. But in so doing you are turning your back on some people who could be your allies if you were not so intent on your snipe fest.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)from the very beginning. And with that, my conversation with you in this thread is over.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)It seems as if the responder has divined your purpose very well.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Oh, well.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)simply an observation of tactic.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Still trying to derail threads by introducing irrelevancies? Weak and obvious. I'm sure you could do better.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)but imo you've adopted a position that not only is indefensible but shouldn't be defended.
What's happened on the right seems to be spreading, with a lot of professional help, no doubt. I wonder if some people on this forum, certain they're morally superior to political opponents, will someday be able to look back and see that at some point they became the very thing they despise. Or never?
Eliot Rosewater
(31,109 posts)non democratic candidate.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)However, you aren't speaking very clearly. You say as an atheist you think it is "all a lie"....which I take it you think the entire Bible/christianity is a lie. Fine. But that is not the issue we are talking about.
What you had said was you think lying is a fundamental Christian value. It isn't. Not even close. Lying is forbidden by Christianity, it is one of the Ten Commandments. Furthermore, corruption is condemned time after time.
I understand why you are now trying to divert attention to the side issue of whether you think Christianity is a lie or not.
You are now diverting from a back track! Remarkable!
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)You flatly refused to discuss what MM was talking about even after he clarified you interpreted it wrongly. Now you claim MM is walking away from your own diversion while insisting he is diverting. How rich.
...I think the point is that religion doesn't do anything to keep one from being corrupt or duplicitous or prevent one from lying.
Based on the obvious evidence, all the people you come back as socks here on DU seem to have been pro-theology (and "pro-duplicity and/or pro-lying" ):
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1218273951
and
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=346037 who was sock of that flacid faither Justin-something-something:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=266818
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1218277262#post63
What do you think Lying and Duplicity say about a person and the religion they profess?
What is your opinion?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)"Corruption, Duplicitousness, and Lying are Important Christian Values, Apparently.
If you look at many of those who represent themselves as the teachers and leaders of Christianity, I can draw no other conclusion."
I disagree. I have explained why.
Of course, having a religion may or may not prevent someone from lying...and someone may or may not obey their religion's teachings.
That does not logically teach lying is an important christian value.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...is lying for jesus justified...are you going to defend what that jerk rug and that twit justin-something-something did, returning as DU socks, as ok?
These two PPR'ed/FFR'ed numb-nuts had a hard-on for their religion and felt it was ok to lie and cheat to spread their beliefs, is that ok?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I am not responsible for every christian's views, nor do i support what you referenced to by other posters.
So I won't say anything more than what i have already said. figure it out
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)Lying is forbidden by Christianity, it is one of the Ten Commandments. Furthermore, corruption is condemned time after time.
I get it, you're not going to say what rug and justin-something-something did was wrong, are you?
For my part, I would ask Justin-something-something if lying is not a sin?
Should corruption be condemned or punished?
And maybe I already have figured it out...ask justin...just maybe...
is how I would respond to justin-something-something.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)But I told you I don't support them. I will leave it at that.
...
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...either you are deliberately lying:
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=273957
or you have a really bad memory of a thread started by the rug/newcriminal sock where you posted more than a few times:
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1218273951
Just'in sayin'
Response to NeoGreen (Reply #73)
ollie10 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...flame out.
I wonder if there is a direct or inverse relationship between rate of flame out and inherent intelligence?
Hmmm...
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)A Christian declares that Christians behaving in a bad way are not true Christians.
I wonder what would happen if Atheists started disqualifying Christians for not being true Christians?
What would happen if Atheists started demanding hard proof that a so-called Christian actually deserves religious exemptions because he's a true Christian?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)you know...commandments.....holds lying as one of its core values? Oh wow.....
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Lying and corruption seem mild by comparison.
Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
— Psalm 137 : 9
ollie10
(2,091 posts)But that verse was part of a psalm about the nation of the Jews who were displaced and looking forward to getting their land back.
It might help to understand how literature is not always literal....sometimes there are such things as metaphors, and such. Most of us learn that in school
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’
-- JC, circa 30
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_thy_father_and_thy_mother
ollie10
(2,091 posts)....would you search for a way to change the subject?
obviously, yes.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Very telling that.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Have you anything to say on THAT topic?
no
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The bible contains all sorts of contradictory instructions including "thou shall not kill" while directing the killing of innocents in other situations, which you dismiss as metaphorical while insisting the instruction you cited must be followed literally (even though it doesn't literally say that). Funny how that works. Also funny how you refuse to discuss the subject at all, insisting your "metaphorical" interpretation is the only one that matters.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I was responding to someone who made the ridiculous point that one of the central messages of the Bible was lying and corruption.
Then you come up with a psalm that was clearly talking about the displacement of the Jews and longing to return to their land. Which had absolutely nothing to do with the bible telling us to lie.
I would not take driving lessons from an Amish. Neither would I take Bible lessons from you
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I also 'came up' with a reference to your very own "10 Commandments" which is evidently also an "obscure" reference and a quote from JC himself, both of which you simply pretend don't exist let alone obscure.
Meanwhile your own "obscure" 10 Commandment reference doesn't literally say what you literally claim, yet you insist on a metaphorical interpretation while objecting to another equally authoritative instruction that JC himself was far more clear about.
So please keep pretending you didn't get schooled by a heathen. It only makes it that much more funny.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)you took a verse out of leviticus that was not in the ten commandments. I identified it as such.
bye
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)"Honour thy father and thy mother" is one of the Ten Commandments in the Hebrew Bible. The commandment is generally regarded in Protestant and Jewish sources as the fifth in both the list in Exodus 20:1–21, and in Deuteronomy (Dvarim) 5:1–23. Catholics count this as the fourth.[1]
Post #40:
43. your verse was from leviticus, not the ten commandments
-- ollie10
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)would you divert to another subject? Would you search the Bible for some obscure verse? I see
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It's just you choose to ignore it while insisting others must be followed. Funny how that works.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Now please explain to us why you think the Ten Commandments is obscure.....
I won't hold my breath.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)not the ten commandments
now, pray tell, what do you have to say about lying being a central message of the bible>?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Maybe next time you'll actually read the relevant parts you are insisting must be metaphorically interpreted literally.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)We wouldn't want actual discussion around these parts. When they say it's metaphorical that's the end of the line. Pushing past it is disrespectful and losing us votes!
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Obviously it means whatever they can delude themselves into thinking it means. Just seems a bit hypocritical when they simultaneously claim other Christians can't and don't come up with their own meanings.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Why do you misquote me? That is deceptive
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I said I couldn't care if you did. So yeah, misquoting most certainly is deceptive and prohibited by your 9th Commandment, yet you continue to do it anyway.
"Honour thy father and thy mother" is one of the Ten Commandments in the Hebrew Bible. The commandment is generally regarded in Protestant and Jewish sources as the fifth in both the list in Exodus 20:1–21, and in Deuteronomy (Dvarim) 5:1–23. Catholics count this as the fourth.[1]
Post #40:
43. your verse was from leviticus, not the ten commandments
-- ollie10
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Here is what I said back thread.....
"But that verse was part of a psalm about the nation of the Jews who were displaced and looking forward to getting their land back.
It might help to understand how literature is not always literal....sometimes there are such things as metaphors, and such. Most of us learn that in school"
Clearly sometimes does not mean every time....or even most times.
And one of your replies in #47:
The bible contains all sorts of contradictory instructions including "thou shall not kill" while directing the killing of innocents in other situations, which you dismiss as metaphorical
Come on, I only pointed out one Psalm might be metaphorical....now that gets magnified to all sorts of.....
Then we got side tracked by some reference to leviticus!
This is silly. You don't like Christianity. We get that.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)So perhaps you've got it all figured out on which parts are metaphorical and which parts are literal. I don't really care other than to point out the "metaphorical" excuse seems to be rather convenient at times, especially right after demanding a literal interpretation of another commandment which doesn't even literally say what you claim.
Meanwhile I also included a direct quote from JC from the synoptic gospels which removes all ambiguity on the matter of the 4th commandment, which you conveniently ignored while pretending atheists are ignorant about subjects in which you display an astounding level of ignorance on.
Just sayin'
ollie10
(2,091 posts)we were talking about the OP. The OP said christianity has lies as a major value. I disagreed and showed why. Then the diverting happened. Like what does the 4th commandment or leviticus or the quote you didn't bother to look up the verse from....have to do with the OP?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)
I truly hate to be the atheists who gives you a bible lesson, but the 9th commandment is a prohibition on perjury, not lying in general. So the diversion started there, and if you knew half as much about the commandments as you claim you would have already known this. The one thing you got half right was I did fail to include the verse number of the quote I included, but I simply assumed one who claims to have a competent knowledge of the bible wouldn't need it. On retrospect this was a poor assumption on my part and I stand guilty as charged, but google is your friend if you really wanted to know such things.
Had you asked for clarification of my point rather than opting for condescension, I would have told you the 10 commandments most certainly aren't even remotely binding on Christians and the 4th is a pretty good example, although certainly not the only one. So even if your interpretation of the 9th commandment was accurate (and it ain't), the very best you had was a diversion to begin with.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Although they also make the same claim that not everything is metaphorical, but refuse to ever say which parts are and aren't.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Each and every theist is different, and we need to specify every time or we're being bigots, while all atheists can be grouped together with no issues.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)Circumcision and pork (odd couple that) got special exemptions early on because it was hard to recruit non jews if the men had to get their dicks clipped and nobody could eat pigs. But it is news to me, to most protestant denominations, and certainly to catholics that the whole commandments stuff is old book only.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)the poster made a mistake and it is funny seeing the pretzel logic instead of simply admitting the ten commandments are not the leviticus verse referred to by the poster.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)You seem confused about the implications of the biblical requirement to honor your parents.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Sorta like ridiculous
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)"Honour thy father and thy mother" is one of the Ten Commandments in the Hebrew Bible. The commandment is generally regarded in Protestant and Jewish sources as the fifth in both the list in Exodus 20:1–21, and in Deuteronomy (Dvarim) 5:1–23. Catholics count this as the fourth.[1]
Post #40:
43. your verse was from leviticus, not the ten commandments
-- ollie10
"Honour thy father and thy mother" is one of the Ten Commandments in the Hebrew Bible. The commandment is generally regarded in Protestant and Jewish sources as the fifth in both the list in Exodus 20:1–21, and in Deuteronomy (Dvarim) 5:1–23. Catholics count this as the fourth.[1]
Post #40:
43. your verse was from leviticus, not the ten commandments
-- ollie10
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)"Honour thy father and thy mother" is one of the Ten Commandments in the Hebrew Bible. The commandment is generally regarded in Protestant and Jewish sources as the fifth in both the list in Exodus 20:1–21, and in Deuteronomy (Dvarim) 5:1–23. Catholics count this as the fourth.[1]
Post #40:
43. your verse was from leviticus, not the ten commandments
-- ollie10
But I'm the one who is confused
ollie10
(2,091 posts)that is not the ten commandments
the post, also had little to do with the topic and I shouldn't have even responded
...
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)"Honour thy father and thy mother" is one of the Ten Commandments in the Hebrew Bible. The commandment is generally regarded in Protestant and Jewish sources as the fifth in both the list in Exodus 20:1–21, and in Deuteronomy (Dvarim) 5:1–23. Catholics count this as the fourth.[1]
Post #40:
43. your verse was from leviticus, not the ten commandments
-- ollie10
ollie10
(2,091 posts)The commandment i referred to was the 9th.
Look up thread.
Then someone started talking, for some reason only known to him, about leviticus, not the 10 commandments.
No matter how many times you post the 10 commandments doesn't change that. It is upthread. Anyone can see, and at this point it isn't worth talking about.
Still off topic
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)So clearly someone is confused.
"Honour thy father and thy mother" is one of the Ten Commandments in the Hebrew Bible. The commandment is generally regarded in Protestant and Jewish sources as the fifth in both the list in Exodus 20:1–21, and in Deuteronomy (Dvarim) 5:1–23. Catholics count this as the fourth.[1]
Post #40:
43. your verse was from leviticus, not the ten commandments
-- ollie10
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)"Wise as serpents" in some translations.
2) In the Old Testament, prophets are told to prophesy false things.
3) Once,.when talking on a religion show.about the pederasty and coverup scandal, I noted that many priests, bishops, had known about the problem, but had lied, and assured us we had a perfect or very good church.. That I said, was a lie. So I asked how they justified such lies to themselves.
I asked if priests had some kind of ethics argument to justify lying. They said they did.
Their example was this: suppose you are in Nazi Germany, hiding Jews in your house. One day, Nazi troops arrive, and ask if you know where any hidden Jews might be. Are you required by honesty, to say " yes"?
Priests told me you are not. They said the real, larger question that was being asked, was this: "do you know where any hidden Jews are - and do you want us to arrest them, and execute them?" And to that question, they asserted, you could say " no.."
But in effect? To the short-term question that had been asked, you WERE allowed to lie in response.
So our churches DO teach religious leaders arguments allowing religious leaders to lie.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)but you are stretching it if you expand that to mean the central focus is lying in general.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)And 5) said he would allow " false" prophets. And 6) allow a false Christ, to deceive nearly everyone.
So many false things are often allowed, even mandated,.by God.
God in short, doesn't really mind falsehood,.often.
He 7) even likes to send " false spirits" to deceive folks.
So looks like you've got a liar God.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)2) God even allowed things that he HIMSELF saw as "false."
3) He not only allowed them; he actively sent them to "confuse" and deceive us.
This suggests that God not only allows apparent lies, falsehoods. And tons of them. But also he sent and even forced on us, what even he himself regards as lies,.falsehoods. As he himself called them.
And? 4) When we look at all the times God sends "false" things? But especially when he says that basically the whole "world" is to be deceived, and "all have sinned," this suggests that at least at times,.this is God's major project; allowing massive, prevailing, predominant deception.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)A bit of lying here, a bit of murder there, some pillaging and coveting of your neighbor, and wow that sure escalated quickly! here we are with Trump as the leader of God's Only Party.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)right?
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)Seems like your dusty book of rules is pretty much useless. It certainly isn’t revealed wisdom from a divine being. How about we just discard it, stop with the ridiculous fairy tales, and realize we are on our own and have to figure this stuff ourselves.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)And his rules as absolute, "eternal." So if he seems to suddenly be flexible, accommodating, about things like, say, lying and cheating, that seems inconsistent with the major view of him.
And it means that we can't always rely on any given thing he says. Since he might well flip flop. And say the opposite, anytime .
It might have been somewhat better, if he'd supported situation or relative ethics from the start. So at least he'd have been more honest.
But in fact, in any case, probably no religious schema is really entirely perfect.
So we probably should give up on the idea of a "perfect" God. Or even a very very "good" one.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Boenhoffer, a lutheran pastor, participated in an assassination attempt on Hitler.
Would you argue that he shouldn't have?
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)With " Gott Mit Uns" or " God With Us" on it?
http://livinghistory.ru/topic/62147-priazhka-gott-mit-uns/
The secular study of Ethics is very, very complicated. In contrast, the extremely common religious idea that Christianity is all or even mostly good,.is horribly, criminally simple.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)good for you.
you are adept at taking the most simplistic forms of christianity, and making a straw man argument, attacking that.
wow!
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)And destroyed billions of lives. So I suggest we should be able to mention them.
And consider. Any allegedly sophisticated forms of Christianity, by failing to condemn the simple forms, give those fantastically destructive forms permission, and support. In effect, silent sophistication, if it exists, probably acts as an enabler for the horribly simple and deadly.
Or will you argue that deadly religion is the more sophisticated form?
You seem to have just gone from saying that 1) lying cannot ever be central to Christianity,.to 2) tacitly allowing that much lying is there. And 3) therefore, good?
I expect that you will be telling us gradually, that almost all forms of what preachers said was evil, are good. To your sophisticated Christianity. Soon. But at the very least, that would suggest that the great simple mass of Christians and churches, was deceived.
Your defense of religion, no, matter how lying or probably murderous, is noted.
As a very, very serious problem.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)If religion was responsible for even half of genocide and etc in the past century....you might even have a point.
But they teach you in talking points school that religion is responsible for all genocide, wars, and plagues on the land....when historically it is less by a long shot
I will make a deal with you....I won't say atheism is the cause of genocide and wars if you stop giving religion the blame for it
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)All it really does is provide proof someone is working just a bit too hard to construct a false equivalence with predictable results.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I won't, if you don't blame it all on religion. deal?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)By continuing to not do what I never did to begin with. Seems like a great deal at twice the price!
ollie10
(2,091 posts)the vast majority of historians would disagree
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I’m pretty sure the vast majority of historians would agree. Not sure who you’ve been reading, but regardless the diversion as to whether atheism was responsible is noted.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)what links do you have to support your opinion?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)So you might want to consider diving a little deeper into your vast google knowledge before you try to claim otherwise as I’m pretty sure not many reputable historians are going to agree with you.
Not that any of this is anything more than a diversion, unless you can describe how atheism can be used to get anyone to do anything and I’m pretty sure you can’t.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)but he sure hated christians!
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Unless the point was diversion.
Mariana
(14,856 posts)History didn't begin in 1918.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)the last purely religious war was in the 1600s
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)His antisemitism, was learned from Catholic "replacement theology." Many churches taught that Judaism was inferior,.and was replaced in the heart of God, by Christianity.
In contrast, Jews were said to be backward and evil; and to have wrongly killed Jesus, through their backward sinfullness
My Europen friends all tell me that the Church and Hitler cooperated neatly, continually. Most Nazis were Christians.
As you might begin to guess from say, that belt buckle, Exhibit A.
Pope Benedict XVI, was a young German soldier in WWII; a panzer antiaircraft loader. His biography confesses he had joined the Nazi Party.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic.[1] In light of evidence such as his fierce criticism and vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity,[2] numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition,[1] and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity.[1] Historian Laurence Rees found no evidence that "Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church".[3] Hitler's remarks to confidants, as described in the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer, and transcripts of Hitler's private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann in Hitler's Table Talk, are further evidence of his irreligious and anti-Christian beliefs;[1] these sources record a number of private remarks in which Hitler ridicules Christian doctrine as absurd, contrary to scientific advancement, and socially destructive.[1][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Mariana
(14,856 posts)Why did so many Christians follow a man like that? Is it the same reason so many Christians in the US are supporting Trump?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)once in power, not so much.
however, most historians agree he was hostile towards christianity
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)public support of religious leaders remained very important to the regime right up to the end.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Mariana
(14,856 posts)(Jews were less than 1%). Who do you think the members of the NSDAP were? They were Christians. It would have been impossible to find enough non-Christians to populate the SA, the SS, the Gestapo, and all the other institutions that kept the Nazi state going, especially since the largest group of non-Christians, the Jews, were excluded.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)And want to disavow him.entirely. No doubt he had his differences with Chridtianity. But? My statements above also seem mostly well substantiated.
In fact, I lived in Germany after the war,.in Munich, Bavaria; where Hitler got his start. That part of Germany was heavily Catholic, and there were holy statues everywhere. Earlier, note, probably more than 20,000,000 German Christians had joined the Nazi Party, or the war effort. I was ablel to speak with many of them.
Likely Hitler did depart from Christianity in many ways, privately. But publicly he couldn't push against it very hard. Because of public resistance.
And in fact, Hitler and the Church were able to mostly coexist, without very open conflict, for more than a decade. Likewise Mussolini, in Rome itself.
The Church today makes much of any differences. But the vast majority of Germans continued to say they were Christian, even as they went to war with the world. In particular for that matter, the anti-Semitism at the center of Nazism, was clearly consistent with replacement theology. When I lived in Germany in the 1950s, the famous "Passion plays," like Oberamagau, still pictured the Jews around Jesus as evil ugly persons, who were in effect, his murderers.
So Christianity and the vast bulk of Nazis,.managed to work together far, far more cooperatively than Christian scholars like to admit.
Much later, by the way, I went on to talk with many Catholic cardinals, bishops. Including Joe Ratzinger; the German cardinal who became Bennedict XVI. Few if any knew or could face his past. Most were in classic Freudian Denial. But among those who knew, there were many concerns. The subject was so shocking, so forbidden, so "Verboten," that it was effectively suppressed; pushed out of consciousness. And in the end, Joe Ratzinger was accepted by the rest, as their Pope.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I go with the vast majority of historians ....sorry, nothing personal.
Mariana
(14,856 posts)that Christians were Nazis? I rather doubt it. The Nazi party had millions of members, and there simply weren't anywhere near that that many non-Christians who were eligible.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)His followers followed him but he is the one who caused the carnage. Blame all around, but we know who is most to blame
Mariana
(14,856 posts)without a whole lot of people enthusiastically going along with them. For some reason, the Nazis' Christianity didn't prevent them from committing atrocities. Sure, a few refused to participate, but not enough. Not anywhere near enough.
We're seeing a similar thing today. You know that many of Trump's Christian supporters are convinced that God made Trump President in order to implement God's plan. Some very famous and popular Christian leaders are constantly promoting this idea. How hard would it be to convince those Christian supporters that Trump's orders are actually God's orders? Let's hope we don't have to find out.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)all Jewish related elements of Christianity in order to “purify” it, but not eliminate it. Instead Christian religious culture was and is an important pillar of fascist ideology. Hitler’s personal religious beliefs are a matter of debate, but the debate is about how bizarre they were, there is no serious argument that he was an atheist.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)but historians concluded that he was anti jew and anti christian, but of course he was pro science.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)124. And the most simplisic of non-theists have often prevailed...... Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin.
Odd.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Your willingness to oartake in respectful conversation, or the lack thereof, is noted
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Nontheism or non-theism is a range of both religious and nonreligious attitudes characterized by the absence of espoused belief in a God or gods. Nontheism has generally been used to describe apathy or silence towards the subject of God and differs from an antithetical, explicit atheism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism
Please, voltaire, do your homework before you get snarky
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)So you are of course also claiming that neither Pol Pot nor Joe Stalin were atheists. Cool.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)you can call them atheists if you will.
your choice of words
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)Non-theist is equivalent to atheist when that is convenient for you, and it is not equivalent to atheist when that is inconvenient for you. How convenient.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)you didn't like it. so you whine.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)the implication. It is a dishonest argument.
you are the one who simply cannot accept the definition that supported my original choice of words, which was accurate. so snark away! that is what you do
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)2. when I pointed out that there is no serious evidence that Hitler was an atheist, you claimed that non-theists and atheists were distinct groups.
3. When I accepted your claim and noted that its implication was that pol pot and stalin were now not atheists, you claimed that atheists and non-theists were not distinct groups.
I was willing to accept your definition, at (2) . You were the one who had a problem with it, and conducting an honest discussion, you know, like a discussion where if you propose a definition of a word and your opponent accepts that definition you don't get to change your mind when you don't like where that leads.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)With your time than to quibble with words?
Buy a dictionary ..or something. Read a book. Go on a date. Something
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)in your situation.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)so were many others. there were people of all walks of lives who were germans. it sucks having a dictator, doesn't it?
Mariana
(14,856 posts)without a lot of help from a lot of people. Mein Kampf was published in 1925. There is no excuse for all those Christians who joined, voted for, or otherwise supported the NSDAP after that - except that they agreed with his assertion, stated very clearly in the book and in his speeches, that he was doing God's work.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You are oretty much alone.
If your goal is to try to prove christianity is responsible for hitler....there have been lots of nations with majority Christian populations that did not have a hitler, stalin or pol pot
Mariana
(14,856 posts)I don't think Christianity, as an ideology, is responsible for Hitler's reign, even though Christianity as commonly practiced in Germany at the time promoted hatred of Jews and other non-Christians.
I absolutely think the millions of Christians who joined, voted for, and otherwise supported the NSDAP were culpable in Hitler's rise to power and in all the things that happened because of it. Surely you don't think the Christian Nazis were blameless in the whole thing. Do you?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Ratzinger's family, especially his father, bitterly resented the Nazis, and his father's opposition to Nazism resulted in demotions and harassment of the family.[12] Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth—as membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after March 1939[13]—but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings, according to his brother.[14] In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and murdered during the Action T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics.[15] In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer.[14] Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry.[16] As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established a headquarters in the Ratzinger household.[17] As a German soldier, he was interned in a prisoner of war camp, but released a few months later at the end of the war in May 1945.[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)Most had tales of heroic resistance.
Some day I'll write about my brief conversation with Ratzinger. Which touched on this subject.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)yours=ZERO
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)In order to preserve anonymity,.I can't say much more.
Though? Your link on Ratzinger should have told you that your source, which I recognize - his official bio - was written by his brother. Who is also a priest. Writing for his brother, and.for the Church.
You might expect his brother to cover for him. And don't forget all those times the Bible told priests that lying is godly.
Personally, I prefer the truth.
To be sure though, even the Church finally gagged on a Nazi Pope; when he resigned (semivoluntarily?) in favor of Francis, that was the first Papal resignation, they say, in about 500 years or more.,
Benedict had his excuses for being a Nazi. Joining the party was often all but compulsory. But having a pope who had once been even a reluctantly Nazi, finally did not seem Christlike enough to many.
It was too hard for many believers to imagine Jesus joining the Nazi Party, just because he felt he had to. Even under pressure.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Care to be specific, Bretton? How about a source or biblical passage?
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)about that whole genocide thing.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)About their Church's Nazi and pederastical side. Until around 2013 AD; when Benedict XVI, the Nazi Pope, resigned.
Consistent with, even then, some continuing denial, no particular or definite reason was given for the resignation. Other than Benedict's tiredness or old age. However, Vatican insiders had mentioned of course, 1) continuing problems with the pederasty scandal. And 2) the residual "conservatism" in the Church. That 3) had after all, we add, held on to a (at least formerly) Nazi Pope, until as late as 2013 AD. When Benedict resigned.
So at least some increasingly-visible ties between the Church and Nazism, were finally severed. Though some links with Spanish fascism remain. The current bishop of LA, is from Opus Dei; a Spanish religious/secular group, whose members had served as ministers in the Spanish fascist government.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)And deserted....
In your mind dersertion proves he was a dedicated nazi!!#!!!!!!
Great humor
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)When it was clear that Germany was going to lose the war, he deserted. Like many,.he was a hypocrite, willing to serve a huge evil. .. until it was inconvenient and obvious.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)what was the penalty for dodging the draft in nazi germany at that time?
what would you have done?
You show your preconceived unfairness....if he were indeed a willing nazi you would say the same thing about him as when he was drafted and deserted.
by the way, how old are you?
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)You seem to take in stride the likelihood that 1) religious leaders and even 2) God himself
lie. That 3) the pope might have been a Nazi for a while. And you assume that every one who objects to thst, deserves sarcasm.
From your easy acceptance of deceptive religion, I'd place you in or after the Reagan republicans. Probably evangelicals. Who were used to their preachers lying and whoring constantly (Swaggart, the Bakers, etc.).
I'm old enough to remember the 1950s. When the standard for a religious leader or God was, .. higher than what you or I would do. When the standard for a preacher was to be "Christlike".
And? Jesus Christ of course, would not join the Nazi Party (or so we were told..) Even temporarily. Even in an emergency. When people tried to force him, draft him to do something bad, he was supposed to have refused.
The penalty for desertion under fire in Germany was death. But in the rear areas, and especially as the Reich collapsed, enforcement slipped. In the last year of the war, there were millions of German soldiers who disappeared, or found reasons not to show up, for the final defeat.
Nazi conviction and enforcement were slipping radically, after the.catastrophic German defeat in Stalingrad.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 1, 2018, 05:20 PM - Edit history (3)
If you can be vague, so can I.
I wish I were so young as you assume
No, I do not think god lies, nor do I think he would want us to, contrary to what the OP implied pretty directly.
If you think being drafted (penalty of death for not reporting) and deserting is the sign of being a nazi.....all I can say is I am not convinced. I do find it ironic that you think that christ would not do this....but then we hear this ranting about how bad christianity is. Unlike most of the posters on this board, I think holding to Jesus' standards is a noble goal, not something to be mocked or blamed for all the world's problems
I'm certainly Not an evangelical, either. I know you might find it very difficult to swallow, but there are liberal Christians too. And they object to evangelicals with a lot of fervor too. When you ridicule all Christians, you alienate some of those who could have been your allies. But if you haven't learned that by now, you probably won't
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)If he had to.
But the whole story of Jesus, is that he would rather die, than do something bad. Even for a second. If you don't understand that, you don't understand Christianity at all. Not one little bit.
For instance, Jesus dies rather than say he was not Christ, most say
Being drafted into something bad, Ike the German Army, and then deserting,.is OK, for you and me; or,.everyday people.
But Jesus allowing himself to be drafted into something bad at all, becoming a Nazi even temporarily,.is NOT something the Jesus of the Bible would ever do.. AND by externsion, it doesn't look good, for any pope. We would've thought a really godly man, would've died, like Jesus, or a Christian martyr, rather than become a Nazi,.even temporarily.
If you do.not understand that, then you do not understand Christianity, or traditional churches, at all.
If so, I can't blame you; it isn't worth studying that much. But? If you're going to argue about it, you need to have a better idea what it is.
I hope that if you choose to study it more, or if you just think about its obvious problems, you will choose not to be a Christian.
It might be that some could forgive the Pope for having temporarily been a Nazi soldier, maybe killing American airmen, for a while. If he had shown signs of becoming really saintly after that. But then? He 1) stayed in a church that had always done bad things (as say, Protestants said).. And 2) was still doing bad things, like allowing pederasty, when he was in it, even heading it.
That means that Benedict was a bad religious leader. And it was good that he resigned.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)why do you find it necessary to misrepresent what I have said?
just as you have not exactly been forthcoming about Benedict, calling him a nazi.
I see no point in continuing our conversation.
You aren't talking to me anyhow. You are making up a fictional person who said words I never said and arguing with him. You don't need me or my time to continue this conversation. bye
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)As called for in Thomas a Kempi's book, The Imitation of Christ.
But pope Benedict XVI joined the Nazi Party.
So, logically?
Either 1) Jesus wouldn't t have done that. So Benedict did not copy Jesus; making Benedict a bad pope.
Or 2) Jesus himself would have joined.the Nazis, if it seemed pragmatically necessary. Making him far less perfect than Christians claim.
So which of these two possibilities do you choose?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 2, 2018, 07:16 PM - Edit history (2)
Or to be a Christian?
Convenient for you, that way nobody can measure up
Where is mercy in your world view? Where is grace?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)and no room for grace.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)Accountability for the many absurd and wrong things they long said and did.
The doctrine that God and Jesus were perfect, was long held, and is still on the books for many.
The doctrine that a pope or even a priest is a sort of stand-in for God and Jesus. even has a Latin phrase to formalize it.
There is something to be said for liberalizing, slipping past, all that. But liberal, greasy Christianity involves some too- slick sophistry and hypocrisy.
For many atheists, it seems more honest and good to 1) openly acknowledge that the old rules were unworkable and even evil. And 2) rather than issuing any more word games to finesse them, we should become frank, adamant critics of it all. And 3) walk away from the whole mess.
Greasepaint can only cover just so many sins.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)but you don't have to be an evangelical atheist. religious people have a right to their beliefs too. Most democrats believe this, this is a very important democratic value. Maybe you could join us in valuing beliefs some day?
Mariana
(14,856 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)About it. Looks down on those who don't share their self-proclaimed self-righteousness. They act as if their goal in life is to give atheists a super nad name. They often succeed because few people like arrogance, it is a turn off.
Mariana
(14,856 posts)You might consider looking up the definitions so you can use that word correctly in the future.
Just so you know, about 20% of evangelical Christians who voted in 2016 cast their ballots for Clinton. African American evangelicals overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. You might keep that in mind when you cast all evangelicals as arrogant and self-righteous.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I do find it, as a democrat, rather shocking that people who called themselves democrats would act in such a way. Calling these people evangelical may be an insult to some evangelicals. Maybe just call them by an adjective instead....self-righteous, arrogant, haughty, ivory towerish....these will do.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)So what adjective do you really mean?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I think these will suffice for now
Why do you ask?
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)might i suggest a dictionary? it is often a helpful resource for those who don't understand words
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Of course I understand what the words mean. It's not clear what behavior you are criticizing. There are a lot of things you COULD be criticizing, but rather than assume, I thought I'd just let you explain it yourself.
Mariana
(14,856 posts)Probably roughly defined as "when an atheist says anything Ollie doesn't like".
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)It appears bad atheists are taking away his beliefs.
Obviously we need more bad atheists.
Mariana
(14,856 posts)Does that make him an atheist now?
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)Perhaps he means "... --- ..." and he is sending out a bat signal for help from the secret fan club?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)i find it curious that a common response here is to misrepresent what I have said.
I have never criticized being an atheist. I have only differed when people show arrogance and self-righteousness in looking down on religion, christianity, etc. So if you simply refrain from dissing an entire religion you won't have me to worry about. Apparently you simply don't get it. Maybe that is because you simply don't want to.
Mariana
(14,856 posts)"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and celebrate, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you." - Jesus Christ
Why do you disobey the clear instructions of Jesus? He said you're supposed to rejoice and celebrate!
ollie10
(2,091 posts)it is quite simple to sit there dissing a religion and when anyone calls you out on it, you blame the victim. sweet. but you are not acting like a democrat in the process.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)"dissing a religion is contrary to democratic principles"
Are you claiming that for all religions?
Also you used lower case 'democratic' - so are you referring to principles of democracy?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)the answer is all of the above. It goes against democratic (small d) principles. However, I admit I was being the lazy typist and was thinking of the Democratic Party at the time. To clarify, we have two major parties in this countries and a variety of third parties. One of those parties is the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party believes in the Constitution. It is also known to value inclusiveness and diversity. If you see somone getting riled up about someone wearing a burka, he probably is not a Democrat. That's being a dick wad. If you see someone making fun of a Mormon, or an Amish, or a Jehovah's Witness for being different, he probably is not a Democrat. Democrats don't do crap like that. And if you see someone dissing Christianity, much the same! Democrats respect people's rights to religions. They don't call other people's gods silly names or make fun of their beliefs.
Is that clear enough? I could explain this further if you want, but I think you know what I am saying.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)Thanks for clarifying.
So no ridiculing Isis mullahs demanding the destruction of ancient archeological treasures, for example?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I do recall some Trumpers and Republicans attacking Islam because of ISIS. They wanted travel bans and such.
Have you decided that the Trumpers were right after all?
I mean, even George Bush told us after 911 that our fight was not with Islam, but with al queda. He saw the distinction.
Funny how Bush appears to be more liberal than you!
I believe in fighting terrorism, but not religion.....you go about attacking Islam, it will make our war on terror that much more difficult because in order to fight ISIS we need the cooperation of Muslim nations......hell, ISIS is saying we are at war with Islam.....it is counter productive to diss Islam .....not to mention against Democratic Party principles
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)They are a sect of Sunni Islam and are deeply religious.
But of course you are now going to start carving out exceptions to your categorical decree.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)We are at war with ISIS because of their terrorism, not their religion.
Virtually every non-Trump foreign policy expert on the Democratic side argues that we should NOT act in such a way as to be even perceived as fighting a war on Islam. Perhaps you disagree with all the Democratic foreign policy experts, Hillary, Sanders, virtually every Democrat ..... here comes Voltaire2 saying the big deal with ISIS is their religion.
If you want to join the Trump team, go for it! But what are you doing here?
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)Is it ok to disrespect the religious beliefs of Isis?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)do you want american foreign policy to fail? do you think we have a chance of fighting the war on terror or have a meaningful policy in the Middle East if we disrespect the religion of Islam? It makes little difference that they are a bunch of fanatics and don't speak for islam in the views of many Muslims...if we fight their terrorism, we can get allies to support us, if we are fighting their religion, we won't
at least that is the views of Democratic foreign policy folks, from Hillary on down
are you a Democrat?
"All this talk and demagoguery and … rhetoric is not going to solve the problem. I'm not going to demonize and demagogue and declare war on an entire religion. That's just plain dangerous and it plays into ISIS’ hands,” --Hillary Clinton
"We are not at war with Islam" Barrack Obama
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)that are harmful and abhorrent?
Gosh perhaps because they are harmful and abhorrent.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)----
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)harmful beliefs are deserving of respect?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)that religion is abhorrent or harmful. You have said worse I suppose, but this is a real dilly.
You are not convincing anybody who already doesn't agree with you. You are the true believer Your assumption is something you totally believe, sort of like a cult-like lack of any doubt whatsoever....can't even conceive how anyone could possibly disagree! Hence the circular logic. Yea, cult-like.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)deserve respect?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Do you think YOUR views deserve respect? Somebody could say your views are harmful and abhorrent. What do you think about that? Maybe it is not as simple as you think. Things in life seldom are.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)are simply being dishonest. If you find a set of beliefs to be harmful and abhorrent do you also think that those beliefs deserve respect?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Do you think YOUR views deserve respect? Somebody could say your views are harmful and abhorrent. What do you think about that? Maybe it is not as simple as you think. Things in life seldom are.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)because you have boxed yourself into an idiotic unsupportable position. So instead you are doing everything you can to avoid the obvious.
Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #277)
ollie10 This message was self-deleted by its author.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 5, 2018, 11:04 AM - Edit history (2)
Your question is not as simple as you think it is.
Anyone could call ANYONE harmful and abhorrent if they wanted to.
What is the criteria for defining what is harmful and abhorrent? What an atheist like you believes it to be?....what a right wing evangelical thinks it to be?....just what?
You might say "but I know that religion is harmful and abhorrent!"....and they could say the same about atheism being harmful and abhorrent!
It is just opinion.
And in my view, you are not being respectful to the opinions of religious people, and your self-righteousness is not that much different from what you attack in others. Your loss, actually.
Anyone can be "respectful" towards the views of people they agree with. It is harder to respect the views we don't agree with. Keep in mind that respect does not mean agree with.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)Nazism, for example. Respect Nazis?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)However, if you talk about respect, the ACLU defended their right to march, even in a mostly jewish suburb of chicago. So, according to the ACLU even abhorrent folks have consitutional rights that should be respected
I might add that comparing naziism with worshiping a deity is a stretch to put it mildly
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)with respect for beliefs. Nobody at the aclu likely had any respect for nazi beliefs. They defended the rights of jackass nazis to express their jackass beliefs.
But you know that. You’ve just dug yourself into a deep hole and can’t stop digging.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)it has been a pleasure
have a nice day.
Mariana
(14,856 posts)If you disrespect the religious beliefs of the members of ISIS, that means you disrespect Islam and all Muslims. By the exact same standard, then, if you disrespect the religious beliefs of members of the Westboro Baptist Church, that must mean you disrespect Christianity and all Christians. So, if he is consistent, Ollie thinks we should respect the religious beliefs of the members of the Westboro Baptist church.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)I simply agree with the foreign policy put forth by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party Platform (see below downthread) and virtually all Democratic foreign policy advisors for years and years.
As Obama and Clinton and many others have said (and apparently you just don't have a clue what they meant) we are not at war with a religion, we are at war with a group of terrorists. Think. Let it sink in. If you can't abide by this, join Trump and the Republicans
Mariana
(14,856 posts)Anyway, "dissing" a religion isn't the same as "being at war" with a religion. Stop trying to pretend they are the same thing.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Mariana
(14,856 posts)As Ollie has done on this thread several times. Although if we do the same thing, apparently that's somehow magically different.
Reminds me of another poster, who flatly insisted that there are no Greek gods, but who got highly offended if anyone suggested that his god may not be real.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 4, 2018, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)
Mariana
(14,856 posts)Show me, please, where it says something like "dissing a religion is contrary to democratic [sic] principles".
Hint: You won't find any such thing. The Democratic Party isn't proposing repeal of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech includes the right to diss religions, even if you don't like it.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 4, 2018, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)
We are not at war with Islam'--Barack Obama
"All this talk and demagoguery and … rhetoric is not going to solve the problem. I'm not going to demonize and demagogue and declare war on an entire religion. That's just plain dangerous” Hillary Clinton
DIssing a religion....who on earth would want to do that? That is so totally goofy in the first place. But it is divisive to boot. And it is not what Democratic leaders have fought hard for for years
Well, Marianne, you apparently didn't read the Democratic Platform you posted.....you missed this part.....
Respecting Faith and Service
Democrats know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith in many forms and the countless acts of justice, mercy, and tolerance it inspires.
Oh....and there's this:
We reject Donald Trump’s vilification of Muslims. It violates the religious freedom that is the bedrock of our country and feeds into ISIS’ nefarious narrative. It also alienates people and countries who are crucial to defeating terrorism; the vast majority of Muslims believe in a future of peace and tolerance
And this:
We will do everything we can to protect religious minorities and the fundamental right of freedom of religion
Mariana
(14,856 posts)But not when you do it, apparently. You have been badmouthing evangelical Christians, and disrespecting their beliefs and their practice of Christianity all over this thread. So when you diss someone's religion, it is somehow magically different than when we do it. Didn't Jesus have something to say about people who don't practice what they preach? I'm pretty sure he did.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 4, 2018, 01:08 PM - Edit history (2)
aren't you even a little bit embarrassed by your epic fail re the Democratic Party Platform? I am still laughing!
And now you act as if you are standing up for evangelical Christians! YOU!!!! HA!~
I have made it clear that I don't care what brand of religion people worship....my issue is with those who look down their snouts at others....I criticise this when evangelicals do it, and I call out atheists when they act that way too.
I am not dissing anyone's religion....I am dissing the dissing. There is a difference.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Well done.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)in this respect, they are almost identical to the atheists who hate them. being self righteous knows no political party or religious preference....you are self righteous when you say atheists are going to hell, and you are self righteous when you say religion is worshiping unicorns in the sky.....neither side thinks they are self righteous, they think the other side is.... As for me, I don't care if you are methodist, catholic, hindu, buddhist, muslim, agnostic or atheist. Makes no difference to me. That's what makes America great. I get all sorts of static here when I express my view that people of different faiths are OK and not stupid
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Deal with it.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)But it's interesting that you demand a level of humility and accommodation from atheists that you yourself do not display.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)all I ask of atheists is not to be disrespectful towards theists, don't call their beliefs stupid. I have never called atheism stupid or ranted about them going to hell or any of that. When atheists make disrespectful comments towards religion, or christianity, or religious people, etc I call them out. It is about that simple. If you want to get along with me, it is quite simple. Believe what you want and I won't complain, but if you have to be a dick about dissing religion, I will challenge you because this is not what the democratic party is all about. We are an inclusive party. We believe in diversity. We don't sit in our ivory towers and diss the stupid people down there who don't measure up to our infinite wisdom and intelligence.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)But at least you offered some clarification as to what you are talking about. So the rhetoric you have a problem with is, for example, when they say "You have a right to believe nonsense." Where that extra word, "nonsense" you find to be unnecessary and divisive ?
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)should be taken away?
Oh wait, you probably mean you think you have a right to spout goofy nonsense without it being criticized. There is no such right. Nor is it an "important democratic value". In fact it is pretty much anathema to democracy.
Do you value nazi beliefs?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)by documenting anyone here who has claimed that they don't.
Or continue with your '...' nonsense.
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)Yes I agree, we all post stupid shit sometimes. You are forgiven.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)To answer your question, No
Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Sounds more like you, Voltaire, than me.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)but you draw the line on "evangelical" atheists? Who gave you any such authority? In fact, where did you even get the idea that it was up to you in the first place?
Nobody has said that people have no right to believe whatever they are able to believe. Nobody. If you believe otherwise, please show us any statement to that effect by anyone here.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)They're so evasive or vague or slippery. If they know anything much about religion at all, they have learned how to slip around most solid doctrines or sticking points. With lots of slippery, greasy arguments about the indeterminability of everything. Even as on paper, many still ally with extremely dogmatic persons. By calling themselves religious, or even Christians.
To avoid the endless problems of religion, liberals like myself have begun to turn to atheism. As we all began to , with the constitutional separation of the state, from the church.
Response to Bretton Garcia (Reply #247)
ollie10 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)And beginning to honestly grapple with them.
In particular, the way our Bible and churches deal with the question of violence, strikes many of us as problematic. I'm suggesting that even our churches and their best answers, look a little serpentine.
If you'd like to post this particular subject fir discussion, that would be useful.
I e.: can we really get from 1) kill the enemies of Israel; to 2) thou shalt not kill; to 3) love your neighbors, and 4) love your enemies. To 5) kill your enemies lovingly. Love the evemy, hate the sin. And 6) kill the enemy to kill the sin?
It all looks a little snaky and slyly sophisticatical to me. Even the best answers.
Arguably say, the answer might be, 7) to learn to love your enemy, and in that way kill your enmity. But that answer comes only after many snakelike reversals, contradictions, in direction. And likely that last answer has problems too.
So with Christianity., we're left with many unsatisfactory or contradictory answers.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Bretton Garcia
(970 posts)If you want to do that now and then.
Your presentation on the specific doctrine on violence, and some of its problems as you see them, allowed us to finally address one of the specific doctrines of liberal,.and any residual millennial Christianity.
If you'd like to present other specific doctrines now and then, from evangelical Christianity, with a brief note on how you yourself, and Christian liberalism, find them.problematic, I personally would appreciate that; as an opportunity to be sure, for fuller discussion of problems with even the liberal Christian answers, in turn.
Here as always, my aim is to suggest that liberalism, the Democratic party, and America, will be stronger, if it increasingly embraces not just liberal Christianity. But instead say, maybe, some kind of liberal democratic atheism.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Funny how that works.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,109 posts)The VAST VAST VAST majority of Christians would have him arrested the moment he showed up.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)but there are a lot of Pharisees out there, that I will agree with
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)on a truth that many do not want to here. Best Mid-Western term that is used,is,Stockholm Syndrome. Must be the awareness factor taught in the Public Schools years ago.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)I've been following the discussions related to religion and atheism. Since I've had nothing to add, silence was the best option. You have had a very interesting life, from comments. I've grown to respect and even admire you a tad.
You are spot on. I became a never, ever evangelical when the reward for blind obedience was avoiding a fictitious hell. Existence is both heaven and hell, the real thing, who needs an after life. Just my 2 cents
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Thanks so much for your kind reply!
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)CaseyinSeattle
(10 posts)Republicans .. What they do
Republicans Hate Our Children
Losing them
Caging them
Getting them shot at school
No food for them
No healthcare for them
No education for them
A toxic environment for them
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and wondered as to the purpose.
After a larger pause, I could see no real purpose.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)that had no relevance to the thread. Bravo! 
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)So, in that spirit...…….
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)Wearisome.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)
Pendrench
(1,356 posts)I just had a few personal thoughts (from my perspective as a 50+ year old Catholic) that I wanted to share.
First of all, as a Christian, I realize that I am also a sinner – so I realize that those in positions of power in the church are also sinners. Still, even with that realization, it shocks me when I hear of a priest or someone else in authority who abuses their power for their own gain and/or to hurt others. In short, I see such behavior as a betrayal of the values that we as Christians are supposed to espouse.
A long time ago, I was taught that “the Church” is not the building we worship in, or the hierarchy of priests, bishops, cardinals, and the pope - but the Church is us. So if we remain silent and do not acknowledge these failings and (in some situations) crimes, then we are also at fault. We can’t say that “they are not true Christians”, because – as I said before – ALL Christians are sinners, and so we need to deal with the sins, not make excuses.
If “Corruption, Duplicitousness, and Lying” are seen by others as “Important Christian Values” then we as Christians need to change that perception by addressing and dealing with these failings, as best we can.
When I was much younger, I remember we used to sing a song called: They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love. Perhaps that is what we should strive for.
Again, these are just a few of my personal thoughts.
Thank you again for beginning this discussion.
Wishing you well and peace.
Tim
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)What you said was interesting. It also reflects the better part of the Christian community. We notice that less, because it does not seek attention. It's a pity that some who get much of the attention represent the other end of the spectrum. Thanks for the reminder!
Pendrench
(1,356 posts)I greatly appreciate the opportunity for discussion.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Including "Corruption, Duplicitousness, and Lying".
vlyons
(10,252 posts)They can call themselves whatever they like, but they don't represent the teachings of Jesus, which are love, peace, forgiveness, tolerance, compassion, and generosity. They are degenerate.
Cartoonist
(7,316 posts)Rather than value, I would have gone with trait.
trait
noun
a distinguishing quality or characteristic
Despite there being good Christians, the American model can often be described as Corruption, Duplicitousness, and Lying.
Other traits: misogyny and homophobia.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)-- Voltaire
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)those who claim to be "Christians" do in fact support corruption, duplicitousness, lying, cheating on your spouse, pedophilia, cheating people out of their money and many, many, many other very nasty and hateful sins. Evangelicals in particular seem to be really fond of sinners.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)that is in line with Jesus's teachings, as supposedly spoken by him a couple of millennia ago. Note that I referred to those direct teachings, not all the peripheral stuff. Those people, I have high respect for, because they lead their lives honestly and with compassion.
Some in this thread have missed the qualifying "many" in my original post. In doing so, they have misunderstood me in a very serious way. I don't condemn Christians in general as corrupt, duplicitous liars. I condemn the "many" Christians who are well-described by those words.
It's not difficult to find plenty of examples of those. Finding Christians who are none of those things requires knowledge of individuals and how those individuals act.
Expanding a particular limited statement into a generalization is a logical error. Unfortunately, it's one of the most common errors made in this discussion group.
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)and far between. I had many Baptist ministers in my family. They were hell and brimstone types, some even spoke in tongues. None of them lived what I consider "Christian" lives. Every one of them was a supporter of the hard right and believed that you did whatever you had to do politically to get elected, whether that was lie, cheat, steal. So yes, I think that Christians on DU have to realize that those of us who aren't Christian, or like myself, are no longer Christian, are just judging the faith based on how we see it being practiced today, not on the teachings of the bible.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Organized religion was just as inherently corruptible back then as it is today. It was just more excusable given most of the population was illiterate.
Mariana
(14,856 posts)which makes them real Christians. There are those who pretend to be Christian in order to enrich themselves, sure, but that only works because there are so many genuine believers who are ready and willing to be fleeced.
If the Bible was clear about how to go about being a Christian, we wouldn't have thousands of different denominations, each of them certain that they are right and that everyone else is doing it wrong.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Except when it contradicts itself. You just have to understand that some parts are metaphorical and some parts are literal, but those who tell you that never seem to specify which is which at any given moment. So it’s best not to take any of it literally even though many take all of it literally. That way it simultaneously means everything and nothing.
On second thought maybe it isn’t all that clear, but at least it’s great to use as a moral compass, especially if you need to sell your kids into sexual slavery.
Iggo
(47,552 posts)
malchickiwick
(1,474 posts)by Chris Hedges
This book, written in 2006, confirms your statement. Dominionism is their goal, and any "un-Christian" behavior is appropriate as a means toward that end.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)It is a real threat to our way of life and how our nation functions. Trump is a tool in the effort to make Dominionism happen, and he has surrounded himself with people who have that goal.
There is a real and present danger, which goes unrecognized by many. Christians who are not part of the Dominionist movement truly need to pay attention to that group, which also calls itself Christian. Too many are unwilling to examine it, though.
chillfactor
(7,575 posts)as a Christian myself, I have to agree with your post. Evangelistic crap is really disheartening......they believe all the crap tRUMP throws at them......they are not Christians........they are the devil in wolves clothing....as far from Christians as anyone can imagine...they make me sick to my stomach. 
dlk
(11,561 posts)Anything and everything is fine if it supports that end.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)
WhiteTara
(29,704 posts)Jesus died for their sins. Pretty f*d up, isn't it?
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)They might think it, but it ain't so, really.
WhiteTara
(29,704 posts)of drifted away. Delusion is strong for many.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)I bring that one out anytime someone tries to tell me that story. I just say, "Well, I can't believe any of that stuff. It's just too far-fetched and unrealistic." That generally ends the lecture. If not, I simply excuse myself and find someone else to talk to.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)I'm sorry, but for deeply-indented subthreads do not make for relevant discussion. They do keep threads kicked, however, not for any useful purpose.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Some of them give me the lulz.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)
Voltaire2
(13,023 posts)