<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 29 2003, 08:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 29 2003, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wait, are you claiming that the Christians were not justified in fighting the Roman empire? And since when has physically not being able to win prevented people from fighting when they feel they are morally justified? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Slow down there Wheee - the Christians DIDNT fight the Romans at all. They had underground services, they defied the Roman law in worshipping but never did they get together to take on the legions. They didnt think killing was the Christian thing to do. Rejoice when you are persecuted, not grab the nearest sword and start hacking.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Aug 29 2003, 09:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Aug 29 2003, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 29 2003, 08:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 29 2003, 08:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wait, are you claiming that the Christians were not justified in fighting the Roman empire? And since when has physically not being able to win prevented people from fighting when they feel they are morally justified? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Slow down there Wheee - the Christians DIDNT fight the Romans at all. They had underground services, they defied the Roman law in worshipping but never did they get together to take on the legions. They didnt think killing was the Christian thing to do. Rejoice when you are persecuted, not grab the nearest sword and start hacking. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> read previous post, that's the claim i was making - samwise just misinterpreted me and I had to uh..."correct" him <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Aug 28 2003, 06:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Aug 28 2003, 06:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Aug 28 2003, 03:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Aug 28 2003, 03:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But like I said there are theories that he considered the Aryan people God's people and all others heathen that deserved eradication. Seems like relegious reasons to me.
Stalin killed millions of Russians because of relegious persecution, the Japanase found relegious honor in dying in battle. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I thought Hitler's deal was natural selection. He simply considered the Aryans evolutionarily superior, and hence fit to rule the world.
As for Stalin, I thought the religious persecution was atheistic in nature. (Religion has no place in a true Communist state, so those who won't convert or leave must die.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Both actually as well as replacing 'Father' and "God' with himself too. He was a complete megalomaniac.
He believed (and so did German scientists at the time) that the Aryan race had been made superior by God and was destined to rule the entire planet. They were rather insistent in proving that the Aryan was the superior race :/
It's a good idea to imagine Hitler and Stalin as the both far ends of the 'nature vs. nurture' debate:
Hitler thought that there was a god given natural order that saw the Aryans on top of the heap, and seeked to bring that order back by reversing the 'unnatural' civilisatoric process.
Stalin thought that humans were products of their surrounding and upbringing, and that the only way of ensuring his power (which was his one and only aim since Lenin had died), it was necessary to remove all non-stalinist influences, thus effectively 'modelling' his people after his ideals.
If I remember correct, you're German aren't you Nem? I often hear that over there people are really paranoid about talking about WW2 and displaying anything from it. Is WW2 taught in school in any sort of depth? What about Hitler? While I'm not going to disagree with the fact he was a monster, it should be noted that he was an incredible leader (just nutty <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> ) and definitely did some good.
This is dragging the thread O-T, so if you feel like posting an answer to this, post a new topic, please <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
The Third Reich occupies a good three years of history education - there's little topics treated more throughoutly. This is also why I'd like to point out that Hitlers so-called achievements, for example the extremely fast drop of unemployment rates after '33, were afforded by massive state debts that he hoped to regain by the loot of the already planned war, and constituted big violations of the peoples rights; unemployed were for example forced into so-called 'workcorps' where they were obliged to work on stately construction projects for ridiculously small wages.
Actually, the fact that a religion is mis-used in one case doesn't necessarily prove that it can never be used rightfully in a similiar scenario.
That said, I'm convinced that most (emphasis on <b>most</b>) Christian faiths, we should always keep in mind that the biggest religious community to Earth can not be brought on a single denominator, can not be used to acceptably justify a violent act.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Sep 4 2003, 02:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Sep 4 2003, 02:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, the fact that a religion is mis-used in one case doesn't necessarily prove that it can never be used rightfully in a similiar scenario.
That said, I'm convinced that most (emphasis on <b>most</b>) Christian faiths, we should always keep in mind that the biggest religious community to Earth can not be brought on a single denominator, can not be used to acceptably justify a violent act. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Take the English civil war. At surface level, started as a war over religion and fear of Catholicism (Papism). When looked at deeper it was really more about Saxon ideals, land disputes and free speech/religion than religion.
The Crusades, the classicly used Atheist reason to call religion violent and wasteful, was really about European nobels who wanted to carve a piece out of the middle east. Faith was used as a weapon, but it was not the real reason behind the war.
I can't really name times where religion has been used for reasons of right on a large scale however...
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Sep 4 2003, 02:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Sep 4 2003, 02:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, the fact that a religion is mis-used in one case doesn't necessarily prove that it can never be used rightfully in a similiar scenario.
That said, I'm convinced that most (emphasis on <b>most</b>) Christian faiths, we should always keep in mind that the biggest religious community to Earth can not be brought on a single denominator, can not be used to acceptably justify a violent act. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> AFAIK, Hinduism may or may not have more followers, but I'm not sure... Not really pertinant to this discussion, but whatever/
<!--QuoteBegin--Xero+Sep 3 2003, 08:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xero @ Sep 3 2003, 08:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The fact that German soldiers were issued Bibles during World War I makes me wonder how a war can truly be justified religiously. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I guess we can start handing out books on cell biology and proclaim that everyone is now a doctorate in medicine.
<!--QuoteBegin--Aegeri+Sep 4 2003, 03:09 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Sep 4 2003, 03:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Sep 4 2003, 02:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Sep 4 2003, 02:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, the fact that a religion is mis-used in one case doesn't necessarily prove that it can never be used rightfully in a similiar scenario.
That said, I'm convinced that most (emphasis on <b>most</b>) Christian faiths, we should always keep in mind that the biggest religious community to Earth can not be brought on a single denominator, can not be used to acceptably justify a violent act. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Take the English civil war. At surface level, started as a war over religion and fear of Catholicism (Papism). When looked at deeper it was really more about Saxon ideals, land disputes and free speech/religion than religion.
The Crusades, the classicly used Atheist reason to call religion violent and wasteful, was really about European nobels who wanted to carve a piece out of the middle east. Faith was used as a weapon, but it was not the real reason behind the war.
I can't really name times where religion has been used for reasons of right on a large scale however... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow Aegeri, we actually agree *SCREENSHOT*, marks calendar.
To add to your example, the religious fighting in Ireland. At root, its not about Bible translation and church attendance, its about who your parents are and whats somes ancestor did to yours.
Religion used for reasons of right on a large scale? Really? Got charity?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I guess we can start handing out books on cell biology and proclaim that everyone is now a doctorate in medicine. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You fail to comprehend the underlying message. The fact that German soldiers were given Bibles does not make them Christians. But the fact that they accepted these Bibles while fighting means that in a skewed way they were fighting a religious war (compounded by the fact that Hitler preached that Aryans were the chosen race by God to rule the world). Since we are over in Iraq right now fighting, we are facing against Muslims. But what would happen if our government issued Korans to all the soldiers? Probably most of the soldiers would throw it away or ignore it. But the statement would have been made that the U.S. was fighting a religious war of Islam vs. Islam, and the victor would be the one that Allah chose as righteous. Therefore I don't see any war as being able to be justified religiously. If we are going to fight to take oil fields, then hand out Oil Drilling Manuals to soldiers, not Bibles.
Comments
Slow down there Wheee - the Christians DIDNT fight the Romans at all. They had underground services, they defied the Roman law in worshipping but never did they get together to take on the legions. They didnt think killing was the Christian thing to do. Rejoice when you are persecuted, not grab the nearest sword and start hacking.
Slow down there Wheee - the Christians DIDNT fight the Romans at all. They had underground services, they defied the Roman law in worshipping but never did they get together to take on the legions. They didnt think killing was the Christian thing to do. Rejoice when you are persecuted, not grab the nearest sword and start hacking. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
read previous post, that's the claim i was making - samwise just misinterpreted me and I had to uh..."correct" him <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Stalin killed millions of Russians because of relegious persecution, the Japanase found relegious honor in dying in battle. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thought Hitler's deal was natural selection. He simply considered the Aryans evolutionarily superior, and hence fit to rule the world.
As for Stalin, I thought the religious persecution was atheistic in nature. (Religion has no place in a true Communist state, so those who won't convert or leave must die.) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both actually as well as replacing 'Father' and "God' with himself too. He was a complete megalomaniac.
He believed (and so did German scientists at the time) that the Aryan race had been made superior by God and was destined to rule the entire planet. They were rather insistent in proving that the Aryan was the superior race :/
Bang on with Stalin.
Hitler thought that there was a god given natural order that saw the Aryans on top of the heap, and seeked to bring that order back by reversing the 'unnatural' civilisatoric process.
Stalin thought that humans were products of their surrounding and upbringing, and that the only way of ensuring his power (which was his one and only aim since Lenin had died), it was necessary to remove all non-stalinist influences, thus effectively 'modelling' his people after his ideals.
The Third Reich occupies a good three years of history education - there's little topics treated more throughoutly. This is also why I'd like to point out that Hitlers so-called achievements, for example the extremely fast drop of unemployment rates after '33, were afforded by massive state debts that he hoped to regain by the loot of the already planned war, and constituted big violations of the peoples rights; unemployed were for example forced into so-called 'workcorps' where they were obliged to work on stately construction projects for ridiculously small wages.
That said, I'm convinced that most (emphasis on <b>most</b>) Christian faiths, we should always keep in mind that the biggest religious community to Earth can not be brought on a single denominator, can not be used to acceptably justify a violent act.
That said, I'm convinced that most (emphasis on <b>most</b>) Christian faiths, we should always keep in mind that the biggest religious community to Earth can not be brought on a single denominator, can not be used to acceptably justify a violent act. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take the English civil war. At surface level, started as a war over religion and fear of Catholicism (Papism). When looked at deeper it was really more about Saxon ideals, land disputes and free speech/religion than religion.
The Crusades, the classicly used Atheist reason to call religion violent and wasteful, was really about European nobels who wanted to carve a piece out of the middle east. Faith was used as a weapon, but it was not the real reason behind the war.
I can't really name times where religion has been used for reasons of right on a large scale however...
That said, I'm convinced that most (emphasis on <b>most</b>) Christian faiths, we should always keep in mind that the biggest religious community to Earth can not be brought on a single denominator, can not be used to acceptably justify a violent act. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
AFAIK, Hinduism may or may not have more followers, but I'm not sure...
Not really pertinant to this discussion, but whatever/
I guess we can start handing out books on cell biology and proclaim that everyone is now a doctorate in medicine.
That said, I'm convinced that most (emphasis on <b>most</b>) Christian faiths, we should always keep in mind that the biggest religious community to Earth can not be brought on a single denominator, can not be used to acceptably justify a violent act. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take the English civil war. At surface level, started as a war over religion and fear of Catholicism (Papism). When looked at deeper it was really more about Saxon ideals, land disputes and free speech/religion than religion.
The Crusades, the classicly used Atheist reason to call religion violent and wasteful, was really about European nobels who wanted to carve a piece out of the middle east. Faith was used as a weapon, but it was not the real reason behind the war.
I can't really name times where religion has been used for reasons of right on a large scale however... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow Aegeri, we actually agree *SCREENSHOT*, marks calendar.
To add to your example, the religious fighting in Ireland. At root, its not about Bible translation and church attendance, its about who your parents are and whats somes ancestor did to yours.
Religion used for reasons of right on a large scale? Really? Got charity?
You fail to comprehend the underlying message. The fact that German soldiers were given Bibles does not make them Christians. But the fact that they accepted these Bibles while fighting means that in a skewed way they were fighting a religious war (compounded by the fact that Hitler preached that Aryans were the chosen race by God to rule the world). Since we are over in Iraq right now fighting, we are facing against Muslims. But what would happen if our government issued Korans to all the soldiers? Probably most of the soldiers would throw it away or ignore it. But the statement would have been made that the U.S. was fighting a religious war of Islam vs. Islam, and the victor would be the one that Allah chose as righteous. Therefore I don't see any war as being able to be justified religiously. If we are going to fight to take oil fields, then hand out Oil Drilling Manuals to soldiers, not Bibles.