Christians who ignore bad parts of Bible vs. Nazis who ignore bad parts of Mein Kampf

Incredible, you, in a previous post, said you don't really believe a certain claim by the Bible, then when I give you the most outrageous claim imaginable (a talking dead guy returning.....) you can't simply say that that claim is wrong.
Is that claim (a talking dead guy returning to.....) wrong? Please tell us, since you seem to believe that certain claims in the Bible are wrong.

 

The only way I can make sense from all of this, is what I came away with when I read the bible twice, when I was in my 20s. What it looks like to me is that the Jews had totally misunderstood god, had attributed things to him that they just made up, being human and not ever understanding things, and of course being subjects to human nature, created a religion that missed the point.

So, then JC is the person who tried to clear things up, to convey the correct understanding, and he got killed over it. That god was not external to man, but internal, and through a change in consciousness, salvation, man could then manifest the will of a moral god on this earth. The Will being love, compassion, not killing and hate.

So, then when you read the OT, and see the things that look to be little different from evil, you can understand that all of this was because the jews didn't know what they were talking about. They missed the mark by a billion miles.

And of course, once JC taught those things man needed to know, instead of following those teachings, man turned him into just a continuation of the wrongness of Judaism, the blood sacrifice, instead of the change in consciousness JC taught of. So even after giving man the keys to the kingdom, man once again corrupted it, and Christianity arose, with its own evil history of killing and torture. So, the bible is laying out what happened, and even when it comes to Christ, how man corrupted even him, as they had corrupted things before he came to reveal the truth of the matter.

Now, for me personally, this jumped out at me, what had happened. But then I began inquiry from what JC was saying, and moved from there. And obviously, what he was saying was not followed through on, and Paul is responsible for diverting the teachings into something that looks like a reformed Judaism, that kept its sacrifice, its blood sacrifice, turning it into another blood cult. But it wasn't supposed to go like that.

So, its one long story on the fact that man will corrupt, his ego will corrupt, anything that it touches. But at least the teachings survived, but even those have to be suspect, some of them. For man is not above adding words even to what Christ said. So as Thomas Jefferson said, you must sift through the dung to find the diamonds. But that isn't hard to do, if you take particular things that JC said, that appear to have come from a Divine, Sacred Intelligence. If you see something that looks like it came from something else, you have to disregard it, as what man added.

 

Mah, it's a curious way to approach a complex holly text. In the Mein Kampf a figure like Jesus with His teachings is totally missing ... if you make a balance I would say that the "Evil" [with capital letters] prevails in the Mein Kampf ...

 

The Bible is so insane that it clearly implies that Creationism, and not evolution by natural selection, is how humans developed. If it can't even get THAT right, then it's obviously not worthy of our praise.

 

Did your god kill every living thing (except the residents of the Arc), even innocent baby bunnies and little innocent puppy dogs in some savage flood, or are the Islamic/Jewish/Christian texts simply completely wrong on that issue? Which is it?

PS One thing they left out in that Noah movie was all the dead bodies/animals floating all over the place due to god's "love" for his creations.

 

Incredible. We're in the longest war in US history, with no end in sight, the enemy has free reign in a country with many nukes (Pakistan), they want to sail a nuke into NY harbor, they are driven by their Abrahamic faith, and you don't see a problem!? Incredible.

 

Ok, so you don't need to live in a country to see the benefits and the problems with it? That means you confirmed my argument that you never left your country. You didn't address me pointing out your youth, meaning I hit the nail on the head. And because you have looked at ALL the alternatives of democracy, I know now you're not too well educated. Nobody who's well educated in political science or history would dare to make the claim.

To top it off, you completely ignored me pointing out the reason for this topic, which obviously wasn't too wrong either.

Just to give you a few informations you may not have heard in your life yet:

1. Every country has its positives and its negatives. If you believe that you live in the best country in the world you clearly are only effected by the propaganda.
2. Every system has its positives and its negatives. While you advocate democracy you seize to look at the problems with it. Theoretically democracy would work, but it doesn't. For it to work the people who vote would have to receive full and correct information in order to make the right choices. This doesn't happen because the media makes things more spectacular, is bias and the government doesn't give access to information to the people. In other words: The majority of the voters are misinformed & uninformed when making decisions.
3. You can't compare context wise books centuries apart. If you don't understand the context of the time it was written in, you don't understand the book.
4. Pointing out slavery, rape or misogyny as being wrong is noble, but I dare to say that even the most fanatic christians (like the pope) would agree with you. That doesn't make him a Nazi.

I beg you to read a hand full of books on various systems in the world or travel a bit more. There are (about) 196 in the world, that means there are 200 solutions to basically any fundamental problem in the world and probably not in a single one your countries solution is the best - although it's a democracy...

 

Most of the things you have claimed on this thread I've never said/implied. Wow.
Yes I have been outside my country. No I don't need to travel to every nation to see that, say, Afghanistan, or Somalia, or Iraq (or most Muslim countries, for example) are screwed up.
Yes, I know all the MAJOR alternatives to democracy, and those suck. I bet you can't advocate one that beats democracy can you?

If they agreed with me (Pope, etc.) then they'd remove the rape and slavery and misogyny from their book....if they weren't such intellectual cowards, that is.

BTW, did the Nazis advocate slavery, rape, and misogyny? I actually think that the Bible/Qur'an may have advocated/approved of it more than the Nazis did, but I could be wrong.
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html

 

So can we agree that those texts may have been good role models for people many centuries ago when they were written, but are not good role models for today, if they approve of things that today are considered immoral/felonies? Can we, mihapiha?

- - - Updated - - -

We both agree that democracy is not perfect, but tell us what OTHER system is better!

 

I'm not saying my country is the best, necessarily. I would say that while it's not perfect, a country like Sweden is probably the best (I did not say perfect) on the planet today, overall. Democratic, and secular, and consistently ranks the very highest on the UN's list of countries in human rights, etc. As we Americans get away from religion, and more into reality, we'll improve as well.

 

Sweden is a constitutional monarchy not a Democracy. Their laws are written annually by a retired supreme judge in the interest of the people. Their constitution insures freedom of speech, freedom of the press, succession to the throne, and a few other measurements. If anything of that was new information, which I have to believe it was because you advocate democracy so much, you ought to look into their constitution a bit more. The more democratic a country is, the later basic rights come to law. Switzerland for example and it allowing women to vote in 1971. The sooner a basic right was written the more it went against the democratic approval of the people. Equal pay for equal work (for women) is a thing still debated and not in law in some democracies, while it's firmly established in China since 1948 (when the communists took over).

If you're a human rights advocate you're contradicting yourself by being democratic. It takes too long for 50% of the people to understand anything and change (or make) the law when it comes to human rights. Human rights have to be enforced without the majority agreeing. That's why you have a debate now whether gay people can get married. 98% of the population who's not gay is making laws for the 2%. That is democracy.

For us to agree on that we would have to know the content, and because neither you nor me know the content of Mein Kampf, I don't think it applies for this topic at all. Johannes Kepler was a high-school teacher in the town I live in and I had the fortune to hold his hand written original calculations and theories in my hand. Now if I compare that to Neil deGrasse Tyson, I could fail to see the importance of Kepler's work, or I could dismiss Kepler's work as inferior to Tyson's. The step Kepler took, was extremely important, although it is basic physics today, and gets filled with things Kepler never considered. That doesn't mean that the contribution of Kepler needs to be ignored or forgotten.

In the same way the contributions of the Christian church are astonishing, which most people who are not historians don't even get to see. No doubt, the Christian church did a lot of harm, like any other system, but to just dismiss everything which is old, is simply wrong! And for my example of Tyson vs. Kepler I used texts separated by a lot less time.

Human evolution is a smooth slow progress and you can't skip steps. You can't skip learning to walk and just going over to run. Every step is necessary and even if we fall we learn. That doesn't make it right to destroy or ignore the first steps taken, or advocate against them.

I think we ought to pull some resources and invent one. I certainly disapprove of democracy and capitalism just as much as any other system.

If I had to choose ones from the present and past, I personally like the monarchy most. The reason is the necessary power to change systems quickly and the long preparation the royals go through. Any democratic leader of any country, doesn't know what the hell they are doing, because there is nothing to prepare them for their office. I prefer the monarchy system, where it is clear who the successor is, and the decades of preparation which goes into it, in order to make them a good monarch. They get a terrific education and they get to watch dad and mom running a country and know all the players before they take office. Unfortunately monarchies usually need religion. The royals used to grow up with the firm belief that they have been appointed by God and that this honor is judged by how well you do for the people.

But I am all ears for something new.

 

Ah, but then WHO determines who does make the law then, if not by democratic vote!? Nope, there's no better vehicle than democracy. Certainly not one dictated by some clergy.

 

So some 12 year-old running the country, just because his qualifications are that he came out of a particular vagina, is better for a country than the best person that the people can pick via a rigorous election!? Incredible.
The Bible believes that monarchy is better than democracy, arguably, so you are no more advanced than the Bible is.

 

You're wrong indeed. Slavery, rape and misogyny was approved by the Nazi regime. People in the concentration camps were forced to slave labor, which I thought you knew.

You're saying now that you never implied or claimed that Christianity or Christians are equal to Nazis?

And you know enough of any Muslim country to know that they are screwed up?"

 

Incredible indeed! In the context in which the claim is made (the Son of God returning to earth) it certainly could be believable (whether I personally believe it or not). Did you actually read what I already posted?

Perhaps my reason is too nuanced for you to follow?

 

Well the reason for most countries success is the forward thinking few, and not the majority. The founding fathers in America, as you like to call them, certainly didn't represent the average blue color worker. Baron de Montesquieu, John Locke or Napoleon I. don't represent the average Joe either. You need individuals who're forward thinking enough. The Code Napoleon is now about 200 years old yet, still constitutional law to large degree in France and in Québec, that's how forward thinking it was.

 

"Sweden is the most democratic country in the world, according to a new Economist Intelligence Unit report."
http://www.thelocal.se/20061122/5578

So one of you is wrong.

 

The people elect who is most popular not who's "best" or "most qualified". The people elected Hitler.

I'm neither more advanced or less advanced than the Bible, because it's a book. I can't be more or less advanced than a thing. Are you more advanced than a Chrysler?

 

The official form is a constitutional monarchy, not a democratic republic. I would like to see any source you have contradicting Sweden being a constitutional monarchy.

The report grades five factors: electoral process, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties.
I points out for example that the government is working better than in the US, where for example a "patriot act" removed civil liberties.
A government working better doesn't turn the constitutional monarchy into a democratic republic though. And most of the top ranking countries in that list are constitutional monarchies: Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, etc.

For some reason they seem to be better at governing and providing a more functional free society than those of us living in Republics.

 

On that we both AGREE.

The American gov't are intellectual cowards for not taking on the religious ideology of our Islamic enemies.

 

You are right, they did elect Hitler....but you want to skip the messy step of democracy and go right to the dictatorship.
You advocating deciding who leads by having, what, one, two, ten(?) people make that decision. I believe in humanity more than you do as I believe that the collective of the legally registered (the ones that, uh, actually vote, that is) voters are better at doing that than just a tiny handful of people, unlike you. The countries that do the best on the UN Human Rights Index are mostly democratic, and not totalitarian, so you're losing this debate.

 

DEFACTO democratic, that's the main thing.

 

Then let the public ELECT these supposed "forward thinkers", instead of forcing them upon the public, like totalitarian regimes do.

 

I think all (or virtually all - which would be close enough) of the top 29 countries on the UN Human Development Index are democracies, not dictatorships: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

(Any non-democracies that are high on this list seem to be a result of just being lucky enough to have a bunch of oil under their feet, not due to the greatness of their totalitarian system, I argue.)

 

How did you get to me approving dictatorships now? Because I pointed out that Hitler got elected because he was popular, not the "best" or "most qualified".

The UN can make all the laws it wants, and it makes no difference because they don't have an executive branch to enforce them. It is like me and a couple of friends making laws and then asking Italy to play by our rules. As long as the UN doesn't have a standing army it can deploy to stop wars or enforce regulations, no country will obey them if they don't like to do so. You can see it recently with the "intense interrogation"-tactics from one of the founding members.

I'm advocating that civil liberties and civil rights should not be up for debate and that they have to be enforced. And I think it takes way too long for any democratic society to give the liberties to all their citizens. Right now we would need an equal pay law because women earn less than men. We would need a law making gay marriage legal (which its still not in Austria), so that the vast majority can't change the rights for a small minority, etc etc.

While democracy (hopefully) will eventually get these laws, I'd prefer a 4th branch of government, who's sole job it is, to try to create equal opportunities and equal rights for all individuals. I believe that this is the biggest weakness of democracy and the reason why I will always see it as a flawed system: Democracy is two wolfs and one sheep debating what's going to be eaten at dinner.

The sheep needs better protection and I think it's easier to find ten or so forward thinking individuals, to protect the sheep, than it is to convince 50% of the people and 50% of the parliament that a law has to be passed to protect a few percent of the society.