PDA

View Full Version : Concerning the Thousand Years Reich



BaldieJr
10-25-2005, 11:03 AM
Considering Hitlers' anti-semitism, do you think that his vision of a Thousand Years Reich was indicative of his belief the book of Revelations named him the new Christ?

I wonder if this had anything to do with American involvement in the war.

Thoughts?

danjama
10-25-2005, 11:09 AM
I dont like where this thread is going. (wolf whistles at a group of mods, mod group comes over)can we have this closed please, it sounds really political and controversial?

(walks away s******ing) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

bweiss
10-25-2005, 11:14 AM
Ahhh, and I was juss waitin ta see where this went...

bazzaah2
10-25-2005, 11:16 AM
Errrr...let me see...no. Next.

WOLFMondo
10-25-2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Considering Hitlers' anti-semitism, do you think that his vision of a Thousand Years Reich was indicative of his belief the book of Revelations named him the new Christ?

I wonder if this had anything to do with American involvement in the war.

Thoughts?

His 1000 year reich was taken from a previous peice of German history.

Read 'The coming of the Third Reich' by Richard J Evans. Explains allot about German and the 3rd Reich, and its roots in the 19th century.

BaldieJr
10-25-2005, 11:20 AM
Feel free to delete this thread then. I don't mean any dischord. I just read something and a thought sprung to life. No under-tones or innuendo meant.

p-11.cAce
10-25-2005, 11:36 AM
Read 'The coming of the Third Reich' by Richard J Evans. Explains allot about German and the 3rd Reich, and its roots in the 19th century.

Great book - I'm about 1/3rd of the way through it right now.

Daiichidoku
10-25-2005, 11:42 AM
i'll tell you exactly everything you want to know about das drier reich



in about 917 1/2 years

MLudner
10-25-2005, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Considering Hitlers' anti-semitism, do you think that his vision of a Thousand Years Reich was indicative of his belief the book of Revelations named him the new Christ?

I wonder if this had anything to do with American involvement in the war.

Thoughts?

Uhm...
Your question implies that antisemitism is inherent to Christian Teachings. Christian teachings being at least in theory the teachings of Yeshua, then it would be to insinuate that Yeshua - himself a Jew, ID EST a semite - was antisemitic. Kindly twisted. I might choose to rephrase my question.
Antisemitism is inherently unChristian as it is directly contradictory to the teachings of Yeshua. Anyone who is antisemitic and claims to be Christian is contradicting his or her self. It's like someone saying, "I'm a Communist; but I believe in Free Markets, Individual Liberty and the Rule of Law." despite the fact that Communism is inimical to all three of those beliefs.

Now, in direct answer to your question:
I doubt it. I have never read anything about or of Hitler's that would indicate he believed that he was the Second Coming. In fact, I don't even think he believed there would be a Second Coming, or even that Yeshua was the Messiah, or that there ever could be such a thing that was not him.

jugent
10-25-2005, 03:34 PM
A.H was a very confused person. He was good on one thing, speech. He could be very persuativ.

All other thing he did was irrational.
I dont think that he was anti-semit from start. He learned about it in Vienna and found out that he could get power by blaming everything on the jews.

I dont think that he look like a clown in a public political debate on television today.

Hes homophobia is said to origin from hes days as "bag-man" in Vienna where many "bag-boys" sold sex for a living.
Sorry that Freud didnt got him into psycoteraphy.
It could have saved europe.
I dont think that the third reich would excist for longer than a few decades.
It would have collapsed by the nature of it un-naturallity.
The whole Nazi-ideology was against the nature of man, the same for Lenins version of Marxism.
To many misjudged Hitler, they thought that he never should do what he said he was going to do.

ImpStarDuece
10-25-2005, 03:39 PM
Won't somebody think of the children?

BaldieJr
10-25-2005, 03:43 PM
I never implied antisemitism was christian.

If Hitlers belief was that he was the 2nd coming (which is just plain whacked), then it would be entirely probable that he would believe:

1. He would rule for 1000 years.
2. Jewish are flawed.*

*patently not a "christian" viewpoint, yet some nutters do think this way.

The point is, Hitler was doped up pretty good, and some of the things he did correspond to some really old text. I just thought it was of interest though I see I was mistaken.

arcadeace
10-25-2005, 03:55 PM
Hitler and mysticism is an interesting subject. Our History Channel has documented a lot on this. Here‚‚ā¨ôs a couple of quotes for this thread:

"The F√ľhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian; he views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race." Joseph Goebbels, in his diary, Dec. 28, 1939.

"Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society." Adolph Hitler, 1941.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-25-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Considering Hitler‚‚ā¨ôs' anti-Semitism, do you think that his vision of a Thousand Years Reich was indicative of his belief the book of Revelations named him the new Christ?

I wonder if this had anything to do with American involvement in the war.

Thoughts?

Hmmm‚‚ā¨¬¶ I have never heard this about Hitler thinking he was the ‚‚ā¨ňúSecond Christ‚‚ā¨ô, but many believe that he was the second Anti-Christ‚‚ā¨¬¶ The first up for this vaulted position being Napoleon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MLudner
10-25-2005, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I never implied antisemitism was christian.

If Hitlers belief was that he was the 2nd coming (which is just plain whacked), then it would be entirely probable that he would believe:

1. He would rule for 1000 years.
2. Jewish are flawed.*

*patently not a "christian" viewpoint, yet some nutters do think this way.

The point is, Hitler was doped up pretty good, and some of the things he did correspond to some really old text. I just thought it was of interest though I see I was mistaken.

Yes, I knew you did not intend to imply such; that is why I said I would have rephrased the question. The implication was in the question, the way you put it, not your intentions.
No hostility, incidentally. But, someone posted a link in another thread to a site claiming Hitler was Christian Fundamentalist and that Christianity was to blame for what he did. Patent Barbra Streisand, but I was wondering if you had gone there and gotten the idea there.

Xiolablu3
10-25-2005, 07:47 PM
I think a lot of Anti Semitism comes from the Jewish being a 'closed' community.

A Jew needs a builder, they get another Jew to do it, they need a doctor so they go to a Jewish doctor, etc etc....A bit like the secretive masons in England nowadays, they keep all the wealth 'in'.

This is where a lot of the hatred came from, not Jew vs Christian.

BaldieJr
10-25-2005, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I never implied antisemitism was christian.

If Hitlers belief was that he was the 2nd coming (which is just plain whacked), then it would be entirely probable that he would believe:

1. He would rule for 1000 years.
2. Jewish are flawed.*

*patently not a "christian" viewpoint, yet some nutters do think this way.

The point is, Hitler was doped up pretty good, and some of the things he did correspond to some really old text. I just thought it was of interest though I see I was mistaken.

Yes, I knew you did not intend to imply such; that is why I said I would have rephrased the question. The implication was in the question, the way you put it, not your intentions.
No hostility, incidentally. But, someone posted a link in another thread to a site claiming Hitler was Christian Fundamentalist and that Christianity was to blame for what he did. Patent Barbra Streisand, but I was wondering if you had gone there and gotten the idea there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It came to me reading an Edgar Caycee interpretation of Revelations.

I love the symbolism, which appeals to my intellectual/cynical side. Yet somehow I want to look for boogeymen too. I'm guessing its my mind acting out because, well, its Edgar Caycee after all.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Besides, Hitler and the occult is fun stuff.

Sorry, I missed the other thread. It sounds like a great freshman-year party topic.

BfHeFwMe
10-25-2005, 09:08 PM
Don't think your that far off the mark, there's strong undertones of the party declaring him deity.

http://www.earthstation1.com/Warposters/german/stauber.jpg

Compare that with the scene from the gospels of Christs baptism. Vaguely simular one can't help but notice.

Hawgdog
10-25-2005, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:


Thoughts?

this thread needs way more cowbell

Hawgdog
10-25-2005, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
...A bit like the secretive masons in England nowadays, they keep all the wealth 'in'.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v22/HawgDog/tiredW.jpg

Badsight.
10-25-2005, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Thoughts? thats a head trip

SnailRunner
10-26-2005, 03:48 AM
hmm...i just think he liked the "empire" idea

Most of nothern europe was in ancient time populatet by norsemen, norsemen is Northern Germanic. The origins of all Germany‚¬ī, abit of Poland and the rest of scandinavia + iceland and the feroy <--- thats wrong spelled islands is Northern germanic "Norsemen"

All the parade stuff you se on "leni`s" movies are clearly Roman enspired....a true German would not have done this since it was the "northern" babarics that fought the Romans so hard that it ended with the total destruction of an entire legion in the schwarzwald and the Romans after that kept mostly south of the Ruhr district, but you can say that the "Romans" had the second time in Germany 1937-1945

But its interesting no matter what, you can find alot of myths and anciant stuff in the waffen SS. They had a brotherhood (high brass) that was copying alot from the knights of the round table, they used the Roman style of parading, and the old ancient greek way of running an population in 1900 style

The "empire"the chaplin dude tryed to make was just a big mumble of ancient stuff put toghter by dudes on power trips, alot like Harry potters world is put toghter from all religions alot of mytholigys etc

The idea about "lower" races is ancient to
in werry old days Rome vs jews, Spanish vs inka / maya christians vs muslims (crusades) in allmost all time even is some extent today the world against gypsis, the kolonists vs native americans the list go on the only difference is that Hitler did this when we was moral inlightet

In general people today do have some moral standings, but racism is still going strong. Not long time ago i talked to a ww2 veteran. He called hitler an animal and stuff like that, but he didnt like hes own nabo because he was black........a man fought to destroy a dictator ship, to free the world from a tyran, and actualy he is a "small" tyran him self, every day he talks bad about the nabo.....we might have removed the "big one" but the small ones are still around hurting other people physicly and verbaly every day

i think this whent way OT sorry.....lol....and werry sorry for the spelling....im Danish so my English Gramma kinda sux

MLudner
10-26-2005, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by SnailRunner:
hmm...i just think he liked the "empire" idea

Most of nothern europe was in ancient time populatet by norsemen, norsemen is Northern Germanic. The origins of all Germany‚¬ī, abit of Poland and the rest of scandinavia + iceland and the feroy <--- thats wrong spelled islands is Northern germanic "Norsemen"

All the parade stuff you se on "leni`s" movies are clearly Roman enspired....a true German would not have done this since it was the "northern" babarics that fought the Romans so hard that it ended with the total destruction of an entire legion in the schwarzwald and the Romans after that kept mostly south of the Ruhr district, but you can say that the "Romans" had the second time in Germany 1937-1945

But its interesting no matter what, you can find alot of myths and anciant stuff in the waffen SS. They had a brotherhood (high brass) that was copying alot from the knights of the round table, they used the Roman style of parading, and the old ancient greek way of running an population in 1900 style

The "empire"the chaplin dude tryed to make was just a big mumble of ancient stuff put toghter by dudes on power trips, alot like Harry potters world is put toghter from all religions alot of mytholigys etc

The idea about "lower" races is ancient to
in werry old days Rome vs jews, Spanish vs inka / maya christians vs muslims (crusades) in allmost all time even is some extent today the world against gypsis, the kolonists vs native americans the list go on the only difference is that Hitler did this when we was moral inlightet

In general people today do have some moral standings, but racism is still going strong. Not long time ago i talked to a ww2 veteran. He called hitler an animal and stuff like that, but he didnt like hes own nabo because he was black........a man fought to destroy a dictator ship, to free the world from a tyran, and actualy he is a "small" tyran him self, every day he talks bad about the nabo.....we might have removed the "big one" but the small ones are still around hurting other people physicly and verbaly every day

i think this whent way OT sorry.....lol....and werry sorry for the spelling....im Danish so my English Gramma kinda sux

The Germans originated in Scandinavia and invaded Celtic Northern Europe, driving my forefathers south and east before them ... then the Romans hit us from the south. It probably was not very bright of Brennus to sack Rome in the early 4th century B.C., for they were our archenemies ever after. Considering that they (The Romans) proved themselves to be humanity's supreme combat force it was a really, really bad idea.
The Romans lost three legiones - XVII, XVIII & XIX Legiones - in the SALTVS TVETOBORGIENSIS in 9 A.D. under the command of the inept Varvs. The Romans never used those numbers again. It was not that defeat that caused the Romans to stay on the west bank of the Rhine, as is popularly believed, for a few years later, with the revolt in PANNONIA defeated, the Romans returned in force under GERMANICVS. In two battles - IDISTAVISTO and AGRIVARII Boundary - Germanicvs crushed ARMINIVS (Hermann) and received the renewed submission of all the Germanic tribes (Including Arminivs' Cheruscii) from the Rhine to the Elbe. TIBERIVS then ordered GERMANICVS to withdraw to the Rhine. Why? Money. The Empire could not afford both the pacification of and the building of an infrastructure in Germania AND the social welfare state. It was one or the other, guess which one TIBERIVS chose.
The conflict between Rome and the Jews of old was not racially based. In that one Jewish folly had gotten them in deep water. (BTW: I have read the writings of IOSEPHVS - Josephus - three times) The Romans of the Late Republic had for about the last 150 years been drawn into war after war in the east and they were about sick and tired of it. Every time they turned around some idiot king was assailing a Roman ally or invading Hellas (Greece). The latest incarnation of this was MITHRIDATES VI of PONTVS, who had conquered ANATOLIA and butchered 80,000 Roman citizens and drawn Rome into three wars as a result. The SPQR was determined to end this once and for all. After LVCVLLVS had finally crushed MITHRIDATES, then been relieved by GNAEVS POMPEIVS who basically just mopped the 3rd Mithridatic War up, the SPQR issued to POMPEIVS a special mandate:
Stablize the east by whatever means are necessary.
POMPEIVS went about this task energetically, deposing kings and replacing them as needed, using a combination of threats of Roman wrath and diplomacy against others. After a time he was pretty sure he had completed the mission. He was aware that just south of Syria was a country he knew as IVDAEA, which was then in the grips of civil war as two brothers fought for singular possession of the throne. However, he did not think that this tiny little kingdom could or would trouble anyone as they never had before. Thus he was preparing to head home and bask in the glory of his success, until...
The two idiot brothers each decided to ask POMPEIVS for his help against the other. That changed everything. If they would call him into their fraternal squabble, then they would likely call in others; say, the Parthians or the Egyptians. Should that happen then POMPEIVS would have failed in his task and would be a laughing stock.
Call POMPEIVS anything you want, just don't call him a laughing stock.
He ended the civil war in Israel by marching in and ramming peace down their throats at sword point and making Israel into IVDAEA and a Roman Protectorate under their own king - whom he had appointed. When their own Kings could not maintain peace within IVDAEA the Romans under AVGVSTVS some decades later made it a provence. When even that could not maintain the peace the Romans scattered them across the east (The Diaspora). While this did bring peace to IVDAEA, it led to violence elsewhere.
See, there was an actual racial conflict in all of this; but it was not the Romans versus the Jews, it was the Greeks versus the Jews. There were race riots in numerous cities in the near east between Greeks and Jews. By that time the Romans were just pulling their hair out from frustration...
The Crusades were not racial, either. They were a long delayed, half-hearted counter attack against Islamic aggression from the east. Most people now-a-days are unaware of this as the modern indoctrination .... er, uhm, uh, education system, I mean ... yeah, that's the ticket! education system ... leaves out any mention of the events that led to the Crusades. Oh, say, things like the unwarranted assault against the Christian Roman Empire that had seized the "Holy Land", Syria and Egypt; the invasion of Christian North Africa, the invasion of Christian Spain, then the raids into and then assault against the Merovingian Frankish Kingdom - also Christian, incidentally - that had ended in defeat at Tours when Charles Martel reamed Abd Ar Rahman; or the sack of Rome and the Vatican in the mid Ninth Century A.D.; the invasion of Italy and Sicily, and on, and on, and on ...
I am not a Colonist. I am as Native an American - excluding my partial Choctaw bloodline - as any Indian. That's the problem with saying "Native American": Anyone born here is, by definition, a Native American. This might surprise you - and many others - but most white Americans regarded the Indians as racially equal to whites, even those who viewed Blacks as inferior. History and the conflicts of the 18th and 19th centuries between Indians and Americans are much more complicated than the modern Ministry of Propoganda would have us believe.
One good example is the myth that General Phil Sheridan said "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Sheridan denied having ever said any such thing. Judging by his behavior I believe him.

Don't worry about your English much; you did fine. I'm sure my Danish would be far, far worse than your English. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG53Hunter
10-26-2005, 12:15 PM
that thousand year thingy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

p-11.cAce
10-26-2005, 12:37 PM
In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connexion to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, 'just to keep people frightened'. This was an idea that had literally never occurred to him. She also stirred a sort of envy in him by telling him that during the Two Minutes Hate her great difficulty was to avoid bursting out laughing. But she only questioned the teachings of the Party when they in some way touched upon her own life. Often she was ready to accept the official mythology, simply because the difference between truth and falsehood did not seem important to her. She believed, for instance, having learnt it at school, that the Party had invented aeroplanes. (In his own schooldays, Winston remembered, in the late fifties, it was only the helicopter that the Party claimed to have invented; a dozen years later, when Julia was at school, it was already claiming the aeroplane; one generation more, and it would be claiming the steam engine.) And when he told her that aeroplanes had been in existence before he was born and long before the Revolution, the fact struck her as totally uninteresting. After all, what did it matter who had invented aeroplanes? It was rather more of a shock to him when he discovered from some chance remark that she did not remember that Oceania, four years ago, had been at war with Eastasia and at peace with Eurasia. It was true that she regarded the whole war as a sham: but apparently she had not even noticed that the name of the enemy had changed. 'I thought we'd always been at war with Eurasia,' she said vaguely. It frightened him a little. The invention of aeroplanes dated from long before her birth, but the switchover in the war had happened only four years ago, well after she was grown up. He argued with her about it for perhaps a quarter of an hour. In the end he succeeded in forcing her memory back until she did dimly recall that at one time Eastasia and not Eurasia had been the enemy. But the issue still struck her as unimportant. 'Who cares?' she said impatiently. 'It's always one bloody war after another, and one knows the news is all lies anyway.' - George Orwell 1984

I think this is the best summation of the current state of affairs in the US as any. It also leads to the difficulty in discussing this topic or any other historical topic - the 'schools' in this country are a joke and the irony is that no one cares. There has been so much trash danced bedore the public disguised as truth for so long that the average person:
A. Knows they are being lied to
B. Does not care they are being lied to
C. Willingly supports the lies as long as they do no interfer with NASCAR, Football, Who gets voted off survivor, or the next episode of desperate housewives.
D. Will chose the lie over the truth anytime the lie is simpiler, fits their preconceived expectations, and in some way justifies their own ideas.

SeaFireLIV
10-26-2005, 12:44 PM
Just because you had a `thought` doesn`t mean it`s wise to post them...

MLudner
10-26-2005, 01:39 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Why, Seafire...how rude. I do believe I detect just a hint of sarcasm in your post. I do, don't I?
I take your point, though. It's just, I so enjoy discussions of history and debates of philosophy and politics. It's all fun; intellectually stimulating. But, this is what happens to you when you spend your life with your nose buried in books.

tplynn
10-26-2005, 02:06 PM
History... a chronicle of recorded events. Hearsay...information heard from another. How and what chapter of the book of Revelations name him the new Christ? Where did Hitler write/record this belief? In well over thirty years of study I don't ever recall Hitler writing anything about being or wanting to be the messiah. If he did let me know I'd like to read it. If Hitler didn't write it or record it then it's hearsay not history. Also known as "what if" history. The type of history enjoyed by amatuer historians.

If you're going to wtite "thoughts" down. Then ask people their opinions please at least make them complete thoughts. Back them up with something. i.e. book, speech, weblink etc. Semper Fi

BaldieJr
10-26-2005, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connexion to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, 'just to keep people frightened'. This was an idea that had literally never occurred to him. She also stirred a sort of envy in him by telling him that during the Two Minutes Hate her great difficulty was to avoid bursting out laughing. But she only questioned the teachings of the Party when they in some way touched upon her own life. Often she was ready to accept the official mythology, simply because the difference between truth and falsehood did not seem important to her. She believed, for instance, having learnt it at school, that the Party had invented aeroplanes. (In his own schooldays, Winston remembered, in the late fifties, it was only the helicopter that the Party claimed to have invented; a dozen years later, when Julia was at school, it was already claiming the aeroplane; one generation more, and it would be claiming the steam engine.) And when he told her that aeroplanes had been in existence before he was born and long before the Revolution, the fact struck her as totally uninteresting. After all, what did it matter who had invented aeroplanes? It was rather more of a shock to him when he discovered from some chance remark that she did not remember that Oceania, four years ago, had been at war with Eastasia and at peace with Eurasia. It was true that she regarded the whole war as a sham: but apparently she had not even noticed that the name of the enemy had changed. 'I thought we'd always been at war with Eurasia,' she said vaguely. It frightened him a little. The invention of aeroplanes dated from long before her birth, but the switchover in the war had happened only four years ago, well after she was grown up. He argued with her about it for perhaps a quarter of an hour. In the end he succeeded in forcing her memory back until she did dimly recall that at one time Eastasia and not Eurasia had been the enemy. But the issue still struck her as unimportant. 'Who cares?' she said impatiently. 'It's always one bloody war after another, and one knows the news is all lies anyway.' - George Orwell 1984

I think this is the best summation of the current state of affairs in the US as any. It also leads to the difficulty in discussing this topic or any other historical topic - the 'schools' in this country are a joke and the irony is that no one cares. There has been so much trash danced bedore the public disguised as truth for so long that the average person:
A. Knows they are being lied to
B. Does not care they are being lied to
C. Willingly supports the lies as long as they do no interfer with NASCAR, Football, Who gets voted off survivor, or the next episode of desperate housewives.
D. Will chose the lie over the truth anytime the lie is simpiler, fits their preconceived expectations, and in some way justifies their own ideas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. You're a ray of sunshine huh?

Consider this:

The US is a country that was founded by a handfull of smarties and a few gazillion illiterates.

It amazes me how some forget the overwhelming majority couldn't read... only 100 years ago (not only that, but flush toilets and cars were...???). I graduated high school in 1989 and my best friend had no indoor plumbing. My grandmother does not understand why you need any more than 1 TV channel. My uncle not only owns a mule, but works his farm with it (after working 60+ hours per week). None of these people would turn you away if you needed something, but most of them can't write.

So don't get down too hard on the nascar lovin miner/trucker/coffee maker just because you don't understand thier humanity. Move on back a square.

PS: 1984 was a NOVEL, not the religion of doom.

SeaFireLIV
10-26-2005, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Why, Seafire...how rude. I do believe I detect just a hint of sarcasm in your post. I do, don't I?
I take your point, though. It's just, I so enjoy discussions of history and debates of philosophy and politics. It's all fun; intellectually stimulating. But, this is what happens to you when you spend your life with your nose buried in books.

Sarcasm? It`s just a straight fact. some thoughts seem so unplausible as not even require the energy need to think them...

To me, it` impossible for Hitler to ever have a 1000 year Reich as part of Revelations in the Bible. I suppose it`s possible he could`ve been the `anti-christ`, BaldieJR said `the new Christ`, which in the Bible is simply not possible.

Anyway, Hitler`s 1000 year reich was always doomed to failure. God simply could not allow it. If this was allowed then all the Jews would have been wasted and the fulfilment of the scriptures would have been impossible.

Hitler would not and could not succeed in his 1000 year Reich, even if he had somehow taken over the entire world.

How`s that for a bit of thought? But this sort of thing I prefer not to post on a forum... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Interminate
10-26-2005, 05:51 PM
Hmm. I wonder why jews refer to non-jews as cattle in the torah? Hmm.

p-11.cAce
10-26-2005, 09:43 PM
Since this thread is surely about to be shut down I'll only respond with this:

Wow. You're a ray of sunshine huh?

Consider this:

The US is a country that was founded by a handfull of smarties and a few gazillion illiterates.

It amazes me how some forget the overwhelming majority couldn't read... only 100 years ago (not only that, but flush toilets and cars were...???). I graduated high school in 1989 and my best friend had no indoor plumbing. My grandmother does not understand why you need any more than 1 TV channel. My uncle not only owns a mule, but works his farm with it (after working 60+ hours per week). None of these people would turn you away if you needed something, but most of them can't write.

So don't get down too hard on the nascar lovin miner/trucker/coffee maker just because you don't understand thier humanity. Move on back a square.

I also own and live on a farm - though I work for a non-profit social services agency to pay the bills (barely). I have 6 Tennessee walkers and grow enough hay to keep 'em happy over the winter. My paternal grandfather built a fortune by investing in Wal-Mart when it was just a couple of **** buildings hocking cheap goods and my maternal grandfather worked at the (now gone) PPG plant in Crystal City MO from 16yo to retirement. I'm not down on anyone who likes NASCAR etc - what I am against is the fact that the citizens of this country no longer question anything the media slams down their throats. How many times did we hear about WMD? LIES. How many times did we hear about Osama? LIES. MSNBC recently did a special report that tied together bad news for the prez with "terrorist warnings" - every time the prez ratings drop we get a new "warning". At what point do the "terrorist warnings" themselves become an act of terrorism? Are YOU happy that your tax dollars are supporting a Gov that cannot aid hurricane victims and thinks barring babies from flights because their name appears on a terrorist watch list is logical? I got news for you - this is NOT the America that was founded by a few smarties and a multitude of illiterates. This is a neo-fascist state that rewards the rich with tax -cuts and has no need for burning books or shooting the disidents - no one would care even if they did.

BaldieJr
10-26-2005, 09:53 PM
I'm sorry you feel so much dislike for your countrymen.

You should travel abroad. Take a vacation. It would do you a lot of good.

Or, perhaps you'd like to volunteer your time in FL? I hear they could use some supplies. I'd go, but the trip to Katrina wiped me out.

MLudner
10-27-2005, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Why, Seafire...how rude. I do believe I detect just a hint of sarcasm in your post. I do, don't I?
I take your point, though. It's just, I so enjoy discussions of history and debates of philosophy and politics. It's all fun; intellectually stimulating. But, this is what happens to you when you spend your life with your nose buried in books.

Sarcasm? It`s just a straight fact. some thoughts seem so unplausible as not even require the energy need to think them...

To me, it` impossible for Hitler to ever have a 1000 year Reich as part of Revelations in the Bible. I suppose it`s possible he could`ve been the `anti-christ`, BaldieJR said `the new Christ`, which in the Bible is simply not possible.

Anyway, Hitler`s 1000 year reich was always doomed to failure. God simply could not allow it. If this was allowed then all the Jews would have been wasted and the fulfilment of the scriptures would have been impossible.

Hitler would not and could not succeed in his 1000 year Reich, even if he had somehow taken over the entire world.

How`s that for a bit of thought? But this sort of thing I prefer not to post on a forum... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, I'm doing my best to ignore P11Ace ... but this is not going to be easy.


I was speaking tongue-in-cheek, Seafire, mein freunde. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif You're point is valid and I think even BaldieJr would agree, judging by an earlier post. I have been cut out of this site previously for responding to Leftist rants - which is why I am not here as DLMoffet or MGBurrows anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Sigh.
It would be best if people would avoid stuff like this because then you end up with Waldopepper posting links to MERDOSVS sites that are certain to annoy some of his neighbors, or P11Ace spewing his rants ... which I could do without, I will admit.
I'll shut-up now before I say something I'll regret after that post above. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Interminate
10-27-2005, 06:11 PM
This is a neo-fascist state that rewards the rich

Please stop calling Bush Fascist, its really insulting to the real Fascists of the world.

darkhorizon11
10-27-2005, 06:23 PM
Yeah she was what 988 years short?

BTW in that illustration of Hitler carring the swastika with his followers behind him whats up with the bird over the sun? Pheonix?

neural_dream
10-27-2005, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Considering Hitlers' anti-semitism, do you think that his vision of a Thousand Years Reich was indicative of his belief the book of Revelations named him the new Christ?
I wonder if this had anything to do with American involvement in the war.
Thoughts?
No, not really. I'd say that 1000 is just a big number, a little bigger than the world record http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif set by Rome and the Byzantium.
About the second, I don't really understand what you mean, or it's so weird I don't want to.

p-11.cAce
10-27-2005, 07:30 PM
First, I'm doing my best to ignore P11Ace ... but this is not going to be easy.

If anything in my "rant" is untrue you just let me know. Ever hear of a little thing called "don't shoot the messenger"? Get away from the forum for abit and check out the news - heck even Condi admits that WMD's were not the real reason we went to war. But perhaps you feel its okay that 2,000 of our boys gave the ultimate sacrafice so that Exxon could post the highest quarterly profit of any company in American history. Just where do you think that $9 billion (in one quarter!) came from?

arcadeace
10-27-2005, 08:00 PM
Gee I wonder who in the government YOU are not happy with?

So the Bush Administration is neo-fascist. And those of us who voted them in a second term must be, what... neo neo-fascists?

MSNBC‚‚ā¨ôs Keith Olbermann wears a tin foil hat. He undercuts his position, "we could probably construct a similar timeline of terror events and warnings and their seeming relationship to the opening of new Wal-Marts around the country."

Hutchinson, his guest: "if you accept that theory, you're arguing that because Karl Rove had a bad press day, the mayor of New York goes on TV and expresses a terrorist threat concern. And that to me does not measure up to logical analysis."

Olbermann has still never elaborated on what logic he believes could be behind his theory. Its no wonder MSNBC is the lowest rated cable news.

The fact is all you want to do is rant. You‚‚ā¨ôre turning out to be a very antagonistic member with a definite point of view, an old point of view at that in which a lot of us are sick of. Why have you chosed this community when there‚‚ā¨ôs plenty of lefty hate forums to get it off? You‚‚ā¨ôve been here 1 month to help this forum‚‚ā¨ôs education further dumb down with gutter smear. You need to learn how to learn, and take to heart every sentence Baldie said in response.

p-11.cAce
10-27-2005, 08:28 PM
Actually I never made the "neo-fascist" remark - that was another poster- & I voted for Bush. Twice. I beleive in the conservative Republican ideals of small government and lower spending. That does not mean that I am happy about being deceived which I think anyone can admit has happened. I find it very interesting that in not one of my posts have I made any disparaging remarks directed against my fellow forum members, and yet a few of you apparently feel it is fine to make direct personal attacks against me for stating simple facts which can be checked agaisnt any news site of your choice (I like google news as it combines a multitude of sources and is easy to cross check). Anyway we are way OT here and I am sorry that I ever posted anything in this thread. I often forget how important it is to censor ones thoughts and expression for the good of the community and to accept without question what I am told to believe by those who obviously know better than I. Thank you for kindly pointing out the error of my ways.

Badsight.
10-27-2005, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
I think this is the best summation of the current state of affairs in the US as any. It also leads to the difficulty in discussing this topic or any other historical topic - the 'schools' in this country are a joke and the irony is that no one cares. There has been so much trash danced bedore the public disguised as truth for so long that the average person:
A. Knows they are being lied to
B. Does not care they are being lied to
C. Willingly supports the lies as long as they do no interfer with NASCAR, Football, Who gets voted off survivor, or the next episode of desperate housewives.
D. Will chose the lie over the truth anytime the lie is simpiler, fits their preconceived expectations, and in some way justifies their own ideas. so true about society today

Pirschjaeger
10-28-2005, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:

Uhm...
Your question implies that antisemitism is inherent to Christian Teachings. Christian teachings being at least in theory the teachings of Yeshua, then it would be to insinuate that Yeshua - himself a Jew, ID EST a semite - was antisemitic. Kindly twisted. I might choose to rephrase my question.
Antisemitism is inherently unChristian as it is directly contradictory to the teachings of Yeshua. Anyone who is antisemitic and claims to be Christian is contradicting his or her self.

Does this mean Catholism is a contradiction to Christianity?

Check the roots of anti-semitism. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
10-28-2005, 12:26 AM
Forget it. Just started reading into page two and decided this thread is not a thread to be involved in.

I stand by what I posted, as there is a mountain of evidence in support, but I don't think I'll return to this thread.

BTW, I want to also ad that the Germans didn't originate in Scandinavia but close. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sorry if I don't reply.

Fritz

MLudner
10-28-2005, 12:37 AM
You should check the roots. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

So, you would be saying the PAGAN Greeks were Catholics, then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif They were known in the Classical Era for their intense dislike of Jews that led to full blown race riots on the streets of several major ancient cities from Alexandria, Egypt to Aleppo just after the Diaspora. In fact, the Greeks developed a hatred of the Jews all the way back to the conquest of the area by by a guy named Alexandros the Great, you might have heard of him.
Sorry, Friend, but antisemitism reaches back into the days long, long before the Catholic Church ever existed. In fact, centuries even before the 1st Coming.

Besides, there are many who have called themselves Christian, and been held as Christians by others, who were Christians only in name in truth.
As I said in another post: Someone calling themselves a Christian and being antisemitic is like someone saying, "I'm a Communist, but I believe in Free Markets, Individual Liberty and the Rule of Law."

MLudner
10-28-2005, 12:45 AM
Yes, the Germans did come out of Scandanavia. I've been studying Ancient History for 30 years and have a personal library that exceeds 900 volumes...and growing beyond my capacity to store it. I am far more expert on this topic than on WWII Aircraft.

And, there are some Protestants - to an extent, even myself - who would say that Catholicism was a contradiction to Christianity.

Pirschjaeger
10-28-2005, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
So, you would be saying the PAGAN Greeks were Catholics, then?

Yes and no, but that's another topic.

I'll post more clearly then.

Check the roots of modern anti-semitism regarding Europe.

Of course anti-semitism goes back before the Catholic Church, but I was thinking in terms of modern anti-semitism which has it's roots in Catholisism. Catholisism has it's roots with the ancient Greeks. But to connect the basis for both prejudices wouldn't be so easy, nor impossible.

I also agree with the sentiment that Catholosism is anti-Christian, although I am not a Christian.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
10-28-2005, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Yes, the Germans did come out of Scandanavia.

IIRC, originally you said "originated". There's a difference. I believe your first statement was based on report by Posidonius in 90 BC. He was the first to identify the Germani to the Roman Empire. In this case, then you could say, according to Posidonius, the Germans "came out" of Southern Scandinavia.

But in fact, the Germanic people originated from the East European Baltic areas long before they went to Scandinavia.

Maybe it was a simple word use.

BTW, I'm impressed with your knowledge of history. Which country are you in, if I may ask?

Fritz

neural_dream
10-28-2005, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
So, you would be saying the PAGAN Greeks were Catholics, then?
Catholisism has it's roots with the ancient Greeks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This thread has been so awfully hijacked that i'll shamelessly take part. What are you talking about Pirschjaeger? Catholicism has it's roots with the Ancient Greeks? What? Oh, and why Catholicism and not Orthodoxy for example? They were born simultaneously and in terms of dogma disagree only in a little sentence.
When christianity started as a religion it needed to take beliefs, symbols and rituals from the "ancient" world, to start with. And that's pretty much all you can say about the connection between Christianity and the Ancient Greeks. You should then say the same for Christianity and the Egyptians, as well as with the several little pagan deities worshipped around Europe and the rest of the known world at the beginning of the 1st millenium A.D. Btw, I don't like the word "pagan"; i find it derogatory.

As for the antisemitism in the ancient world, it wasn't hatred as at the beginning of the 20th century and maybe even today. It was dislike fed by the lack of tolerance for the very different and restrictive jewish way of life (the notion of tolerance was just starting in Socrates' times). Oh, and I agree in that modern antisemitism is very deep in christianity, the antisemitism of which has its weak roots in that of the Classical world and and got stronger at about the times of the crusades.

MLudner
10-28-2005, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
Yes, the Germans did come out of Scandanavia.

IIRC, originally you said "originated". There's a difference. I believe your first statement was based on report by Posidonius in 90 BC. He was the first to identify the Germani to the Roman Empire. In this case, then you could say, according to Posidonius, the Germans "came out" of Southern Scandinavia.

But in fact, the Germanic people originated from the East European Baltic areas long before they went to Scandinavia.

Maybe it was a simple word use.

BTW, I'm impressed with your knowledge of history. Which country are you in, if I may ask?

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All right, you have a point. I was thinking in terms of where they came from when they descended on my Celtic forefathers; which was from Scandanavia.

The Battle of AQVAE SEXTIAE took place in the late 2nd Century BC, about 20 years before 90 BC. That was the battle where MARIVS defeated the Cimbri and Tvetones - who until then quite literally had the Romans shaking in their sandals. That was Rome's first full scale contact with the Germans, but they were aware of them before even then. Not Poseidonios, my sources are more modern; to name one off the top of my head, the Penquin Atlas of the Ancient World (Or some similar title).
Poseidonios and I are both Stoics, though.

I am an American, primarily of Scots-Irish descent but with a mixture of Choctaw - a tribe closely related to the Cherokee and Chickasaws - along with an unknown tribe from the other side of the family. However, I primarily identify with my Celtic line (Which is curious, when one considers that my soul is Roman, so much so that I am a Roman patriot ... so when it comes to Rome and the Celts I'm sort of torn between two lovers...actin' like a fool...breakin' all the rules...).

I was going to ask "What does Pirsch mean?", but then remembered I have this big, huge Deutsche dictionary right next to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I mean no offense, particularly since you have offered none, but I must say you are missing my point. Reread my posts, if necessary I'll elaborate later.

Since it is my belief that you are German:
Gutenacht, mein freunde.

MLudner
10-28-2005, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
So, you would be saying the PAGAN Greeks were Catholics, then?
Catholisism has it's roots with the ancient Greeks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This thread has been so awfully hijacked that i'll shamelessly take part. What are you talking about Pirschjaeger? Catholicism has it's roots with the Ancient Greeks? What? Oh, and why Catholicism and not Orthodoxy for example? They were born simultaneously and in terms of dogma disagree only in a little sentence.
When christianity started as a religion it needed to take beliefs, symbols and rituals from the "ancient" world, to start with. And that's pretty much all you can say about the connection between Christianity and the Ancient Greeks. You should then say the same for Christianity and the Egyptians, as well as with the several little pagan deities worshipped around Europe and the rest of the known world at the beginning of the 1st millenium A.D. Btw, I don't like the word "pagan"; i find it derogatory. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Really? I have never thought of it that way. Heathen or Infidel, yes, can be used in a derogatory sense; but Pagan? I never intended such.
Would you have preferred "Pantheistic?" Pagan, to my use, is just someone who worships many gods. Hopefully none of which I have eaten http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif (Yes, that was a little crass, I will admit. Sorry.)

neural_dream
10-28-2005, 02:15 AM
Would you have preferred "Pantheistic"? Pagan, to my use, is just someone who worships many gods. Hopefully none of which I have eaten http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif (Yes, that was a little crass, I will admit. Sorry.)
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Yes about the first, lol about the second http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif.

Pirschjaeger
10-28-2005, 02:27 AM
Ha ha ha, I am getting so drawn in here.

I am extremely busy with my business right now. Sorry guys, really, this could be a very interesting discussion but I cannot afford the time right now.

N-Dream, I apologize for posting so hastily. The word "roots" was my mistake. Think "connections". The connections between the Egyptians, Greeks, Christianity(Greek word), Romans, and Jews are very interesting. Recently I just read a lot about these.

BTW, just for fun I'll through in an interesting little-known fact. The oldest known sect of Christianity today, and believed to be the most original and still following Jesus's teachings, can be found in Southern Iraq. Also interesting is they still use the old Christian symbol, the fish.

MLudner,

"Pirsch" is German for "stalker". Not the Hollywood type but like the deer hunting type. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm German/Canadian(dual nat) living in Beijing. Nice to meet you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Sorry guyz, I really want to get further into this but can't.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
10-28-2005, 02:29 AM
Oh yes, and I'm a Pagan, not the neo kind though. My trust is in nature and my faith is in reality http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

neural_dream
10-28-2005, 02:37 AM
Some other time then Fritz http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

Pirschjaeger
10-28-2005, 02:55 AM
Actually N-Dream, that's a very good idea. It would be intersting to start a private message thread between you , I, and MLudner.


It's just that thread like this requires a lot of research between posts. As long as I can keep my posts to just jokes and such it's ok. But recently I was involved in a thread that took a lot of my personal time. These days it wouldn't be possible.

If you like, you could start the pm thread and as long as we keep it to 3 people it shouldn't be to hard to handle.

Fritz

neural_dream
10-28-2005, 03:25 AM
Not really Fritz. Not this time. I have a few personal issues this period and no time for anything worthwhile really other than trivial comments around the forum. As i said, some other time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

No601_Bigbyte
10-28-2005, 03:45 AM
(this is tongue in cheek)

1000 year Reich? I duno, do you think the E.U. will last that long?

lol

BaldieJr
10-28-2005, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Considering Hitlers' anti-semitism, do you think that his vision of a Thousand Years Reich was indicative of his belief the book of Revelations named him the new Christ?
I wonder if this had anything to do with American involvement in the war.
Thoughts?
No, not really. I'd say that 1000 is just a big number, a little bigger than the world record http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif set by Rome and the Byzantium.
About the second, I don't really understand what you mean, or it's so weird I don't want to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I see where my topic has failed. I assume to much knowledge on the part of the reader.

Christ is to rule for 1000 years after his second coming, according to the book of revelations.

Ya'll followin my logic now?

Pirschjaeger
10-28-2005, 04:29 AM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
Not really Fritz. Not this time. I have a few personal issues this period and no time for anything worthwhile really other than trivial comments around the forum. As i said, some other time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

No problem N-Dream, I hope all goes well for you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Fritz

MLudner
10-28-2005, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Considering Hitlers' anti-semitism, do you think that his vision of a Thousand Years Reich was indicative of his belief the book of Revelations named him the new Christ?
I wonder if this had anything to do with American involvement in the war.
Thoughts?
No, not really. I'd say that 1000 is just a big number, a little bigger than the world record http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif set by Rome and the Byzantium.
About the second, I don't really understand what you mean, or it's so weird I don't want to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I see where my topic has failed. I assume to much knowledge on the part of the reader.

Christ is to rule for 1000 years after his second coming, according to the book of revelations.

Ya'll followin my logic now? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, followed it from the beginning, Friend. I replied to it, too.

Just, like many conversations this one's digressed onto related topics a bit. It's one of the results of posting questions like that. I don't know about you, but I'm enjoying it.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MLudner
10-29-2005, 02:56 PM
O-bee-kay-bee (You'll have to listen to Bill Cosby to understand the reference, I'm afraid...), I'll elaborate now.

The point is not that there is no antisemitism amongst those who are called Christian - falsely, I hold it - but that Christianity is not the source. Really, the Catholic Church and its myriad failures are not the point; they are beside the point. The problem here is not the belief, but that humans are involved. Humans are full of frailties, but NONE of them stem from the teachings of Yeshua, who councils against falling prey to them. His teachings guide his true followers away from such behavior. The problem is that people do not always follow things correctly - or completely. They quite often sort of pay attention to this or that aspect of something, but then ignore, forget or intentionally disregard other aspects, particularly when those aspects conflict with their desires.

A really good example of this is Epicureanism. The philosopher Epikouros (His name in Hellenikos, EPICVRVS is the Latin form) taught a method of living he thought would best lead to a happy life. Thomas Jefferson was an adherent to his teachings, but Jefferson was an exceptional man and understood them. Most don't really get it. They interpret Epicureanism as a hedonistic teaching, encouraging people to indulge in whatever pleases them, thus such sayings as "An Epicurean delight!"
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Thomas Jefferson vehemently disagreed with this low interpretation of Epikouros' teachings, as he followed them in their entirety (How do I know this? I have in my possession the Library of America edition of the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, and - unlike certain published "professors" who shall remain nameless - I have read ALL 1,517 pages of them, and this represents all of his extant writings). Followed as Epikouros taught there is nothing hedonistic in them because while Epikouros did teach that some indulgence could bring happiness, he taught MODERATION. In fact, Jefferson's own comments on the topic would prove useful and as I am right now looking at them:
"I will place under this a syllabus of the doctrines of Epircurus, somewhat in lapidary style, which I wrote some twenty years ago, a like one of the philosophy of Jesus, of nearly the same age, is too long to be copied. Vale, et tibi persuade carissimum te esse mihi.
"Physical.-The Universe eternal.
"Its parts, great and small, interchangeable.
"Matter and Void alone.
"Motion inherent in matter which is weighty and declining.
"Eternal circulation of the elements of bodies.
"Gods, an order of beings next superior to man, enjoying in their shpere, their own felicities; but not meddling with the concerns of the scale of beings below them.
"Moral.- Happiness the aim of life.
"Virtue the foundation of happiness.
"Utility the test of virtue.
"Pleasure active and In-do-lent.
"In-do-lence is the absence of pain, the true felicity.
"Active, consists in agreeable motion; it is not happiness, but the means to produce it.
"Thus the absence of hunger is an article of felicity; eating the means to obtain it.
"The summum bonum is to be not pained in body, nor troubled in mind.
"i.e. In-do-lence of body, tranquility of mind.
"To procure tranquility of mind we must avoid desire and fear, the two principal diseases of the mind.
"Man is a free agent.
"Virtue consists in 1. Prudence. 2. Temperance. 3. Fortitude. 4. Justice.
"To which are opposed, 1. Folly. 2. Desire. 3. Fear. 4. Deceit."
- from "To William Short, with a syllabus."
Thomas Jefferson, 31 October 1819.

Now, reviewing the above, which is an excellent brief instruction on Epikouros' teachings, I - a Stoic and nondenominational Protestant Christian - find absolutely nothing to disagree with inherent to the teachings themselves. Stoicism teaches much the same in general terms. (Incidentally, Jefferson was spelling indolence "In-do-lence" as he was emphasizing its literal meaning; which is not inactivity and laziness, but rather the absence of pain: it is drawn from the Latin INDOLENTIA, freedom from pain [IN/DOLEO, DOLEO: to suffer pain])
You might note Mr. Jefferson mentions Prudence, Temperance and Fortitude. How many of you - including sie, Herr Fritz - have ever heard those words connected to Epicureanism? But, in fact, that is what Epikouros taught.
The problem is, that is not what people focus on in Epikouros' teachings. They disregard all that "temperance and virtue" stuff and focus only on that part which can be used to justify their basest desires and indulgences.
THAT is the problem that Stoics like me have with Epicureanism. No one - save for a few like Thomas Jefferson - follows it the way Epikouros meant it.

See, the problem is that people do not often follow teachings literally, as that takes discipline and a willingness to subordinate oneself to Truth. The willingness to say, "The desire of my heart is X, but that desire is wrong and contrary to the teachings of Yeshua so I will not yield." Too many fall short. I have, just not in any really big ways.

Supporting my point are things mentioned previous: the existence of bitter antisemitism among preChristian, pantheistic - http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif to neural_dream - Greeks.
The National Socialists were secular to pantheistic in their beliefs: they butchered 6 million Jews.
The Catholic Church at its very worst would never had done such. In fact, when Jerusalem fell to the Crusaders during the First Crusade and the warriors started butchering all Jews and Muslims they found, Catholic Priests were desperately running around trying to stop it. Some were reduced to sobbing in helpless tears of frustration.
Joseph Dzhugashvili (Stalin) was an avowed Atheist. He was in the process of butchering Jews in Russia when to the eternal fortune of the entire world and Humanity he died. That was all that kept a second, and even larger, Halocaust from occuring in Russia.
Thus, we see the worst acts of antisemitism were commited by secular powers, not religious.

Now, if you can find for me, somewhere in the teachings of Yeshua (not the Catholic Church, for they do not consistently teach what Yeshua taught), what I myself have never found there: an encouragement of antisemitism, then you may have a point.

BaldieJr
10-29-2005, 03:42 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Jesus is just alright with me.

neural_dream
10-29-2005, 03:46 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Yup, i agree with pretty much all. There are no Christian theological reasons behind antisemitism. Economical and Social only, with the latter including the fact that Pantheists and Atheists found devote Monotheists like the Jews somehow threatening for their way of life, the way Americans used to find the communists.


... and Epikouros is one of the many butchered Ancient Greek thinkers. Btw, an American friend's girlfriend was certain that I'm bisexual 'cause I'm Greek http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif. Do they tell them so at school http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif?

p-11.cAce
10-29-2005, 04:47 PM
A good friend of mine recently commented that "anticatholicism is the new antisemitism" - after reading a few of these posts (and keeping in mind the recent vandalism of a Catholic church in Alabama) I would say this is so. Considering that the Catholic church in America is the second-largest provider of health-care, social services, and assistance to the poor next to the goverment; and that world-wide Catholic Charities is second only to the UN in terms of humanitarian asststance given I wonder why all the negativity? I think any institution with a 2000 year history and 1 billion members would have its share of troubles - as a previous poster said we are all fallen creatures in a fallen world. Perhaps if Christians as a group would focus on aiding the poor as Jesus taught us to do instead of all this sectarian squabbling the world would be a much better place.

MLudner
10-29-2005, 05:02 PM
Poor Epikouros is very butchered.

They don't so much teach that as such at the Junior, Middle, Late or Advanced Political Indoctrination Centers - to my knowledge, anyway - but ... uh, there was a considerable amount of bisexuality in Ancient Greece and so her view of the matter may have stemmed from having a little knowledge (which we all know can be a dangerous thing...)

MLudner
10-29-2005, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Jesus is just alright with me.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Doobie Brothers
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I have that album, BTW.

MLudner
10-29-2005, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
A good friend of mine recently commented that "anticatholicism is the new antisemitism" - after reading a few of these posts (and keeping in mind the recent vandalism of a Catholic church in Alabama) I would say this is so. Considering that the Catholic church in America is the second-largest provider of health-care, social services, and assistance to the poor next to the goverment; and that world-wide Catholic Charities is second only to the UN in terms of humanitarian asststance given I wonder why all the negativity? I think any institution with a 2000 year history and 1 billion members would have its share of troubles - as a previous poster said we are all fallen creatures in a fallen world. Perhaps if Christians as a group would focus on aiding the poor as Jesus taught us to do instead of all this sectarian squabbling the world would be a much better place.

I'm trying to avoid a debate about the Catholic Church.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
I am critical of the Catholic Church to an extent. However, I have absolutely nothing - squat, not one itsy-bitsy, teensy-weensy little thing - against Catholics.
The Catholic Church, for the mistakes it has made, has also done much good. In the past couple of centuries it has also much reformed, which I am most pleased about.

(The rest has been deleted as http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif)

redfeathers1948
10-29-2005, 05:27 PM
Hey WOLFmondo that Evans book was very good do you know if his second book has come out? I have not seen it yet at Borders or Barns and Noble. May I recommend 'The Dark Valley' -A panorama of the 1930's-by Piers Brendon..!
chow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Pirschjaeger
10-30-2005, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
A good friend of mine recently commented that "anticatholicism is the new antisemitism"

I would have to disagree with this. Both differ very much.

Antisemitism is about the discrimination against a people while anticatholicism is the discimination against a certain ideal or teaching. This is atleast my opinion.

Both of these situations started out differently. The second, anticatholicism is fueled, in part, by antisemitism. Many people view the Papacy as the root of antisemitism today. If this is the case, and I believe it so, then the Papacy is antiChristian.

The victims are not only the Jews but also the Christians themselves. I am admittedly anticatholic, but not antipeople. I cannot blame people for the teachings of their Church no more than I can blame people who were taught in school that the Great Wall of China can be seen from space.

I really don't think anticatholicism can be called the new antisemitism. Their foundations are totally different.

Just a note; my father was raised in a very catholic German family. He also shares my views.

Fritz

p-11.cAce
10-30-2005, 11:06 AM
Well now the thread has been completly hijacked anyway I think that Pirschjager brings up several interestng points:

Antisemitism is about the discrimination against a people while anticatholicism is the discimination against a certain ideal or teaching.
This is a central dilema within any discussion about this topic - are Jews a "Race" or a "Church". In many ways the Amish can be said to be similar to the Jews in this regard in that they share a common ancestry, live a life governed by strict religious laws, and make every attempt to limit intermarriage & "conversions" by those outside the lineage of current believers.
The second question revolves around the different emphasis placed upon the distinction - that is it is less dispicable to persecute someone for their beliefs than for their race? I believe that is what Pirschjager is saying in his response. I would think that they are both equally horrible IMHO.

Just a note; my father was raised in a very catholic German family. He also shares my views.

Why when discussing this topic do people feel the need to point out the fact that they or a family member used to be Catholic and no longer are. The very fact that a person leaves a Church and then argues against it speaks for their lack of objectivity on the matter - in much the same way as anything I say about my ex-wife is suspect regardless of how true it may be.
As for the Catholic Church being the root of antisemitism I have heard several evangelical ministers in my area spewing far more antisemitic (and racist, homophobic, & xenophobic) sermons than any I've heard from a priest. I would agree that historically this opinion has merit - though since VatII the teaching of Church in this area has been very clearly defined as is certainly not antisemitic. I think the issue may not be one of antiCatholicism as it is antichurch. The Catholic church and the mainline protestant denominations are all rapidly falling into irrelevancy as people turn to nondenominational evangelicalism and similar faith structures wherin each individual beliver decides what to believe as opposed to a larger body establishing teachings and doctrine. The final result of this social transformation will be interesting to see.
In conclusion I am Catholic and like many believers be they Muslim, Jew, or protestant it is as much me as my eye or skin color. To discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or religious belief is all equally "unChristian". IMHO attempting to nuance discrimination against one group as not really as bad as discrimination against another is what fuels these fires in the first place.
I think when we speak of antisemitism today we are talking about a different thing than 50 years ago. Antisemitism historically was based on a false understanding of Scripture in regard to the role played by the Jews in the crucifixtion of Christ. Today we often brand as antisemites those who question the actions of Israel in regard to the palestinians or some other political aspect of Israel - IMHO this is very different that those who persecuted Jews for some aspect of their faith.
I hope we can continue this now apparently more civil conversation - I find it fascinating http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MLudner
10-30-2005, 12:35 PM
(Sigh) Well, here we go...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

The Jews are both a race and a religion. The debate as to which they are is worthless, incoherent nonsense. Their race was created as the chosen of God and established a religion, named for them, based on that. The Jewish religion was named for the Jewish race from which it originated. The Jews have a distinct culture, tradition and Language all their own.

You know, you're a dangerous man, P-11.cAce. The moment I saw that you had pasted on this thread I was shaking in my boots ("Oh, merda! I'm gonna get banned if I open that thread! I just know it!") and now I'm trying to walk a fine line. I cross myself, and now continue into the minefield...
Though, actually, I think I will ignore certain implications and move toward other areas where we stick to the unwonted Catholic line you have incipiated here.

My own disagreements with Catholicism are dogmatic and doctrinal, I cannot blame the present Catholic Church for the failures of centuries past as none alive today were alive then to participate in them - for unlike certain other ideologies mine does not support corruption of blood.

BTW, Stalkerhunter, it is a violation of the fourth principal Mr. Jefferson listed in that Syllabus of the teachings of Epikouros for you to do so, either. What was done five hundred years past none alive today can be held to account for, for they were not alive to have committed the crimes. There is no justice in it. Neither do I blame or hold accountable any Mohammedeans (To use Jefferson's term) alive today for the sack of Rome and the Vatican that their predecessors committed.
The Catholic Church itself has reformed heavily. It's still a government of sorts, which role it should abandon, but it has long since ceased to launch crusades (Though, personally, I think launching a Sudanese Crusade might not be such a bad idea, considering the butchery going on over there. Islamic fanatics have been slaughtering a staggering number of Christians - and large numbers of pantheistic Animists [ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif to neural_dream] and it frankly infuriates me .... but, it's mostly Christians being killed, so who cares, right?) nor Inquisitions. One might disagree with some of the Church's pronounciations and stances, but they have as much a right to their opinions as you to yours.

p-11.cAce
10-30-2005, 01:42 PM
Dangerous? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif How so?

MLudner
10-30-2005, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Dangerous? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif How so?

Temptation. See? Right now I have to refrain, because it will start a bad, bad debate (Not necessarily hostile but objectionable to the powers that be here abouts [And it's their forum, so I have no objection to that fact]). You and I are on opposite sides politically and in your posts on these kind of topics you occasionally either directly say things or imply things that cause me to bristle, get my gander up and cause my fingers to start rattling over my keyboard at a frenetic pace. You did it more than once in that post above, for example.
Above you'll notice a post where that happened, then I deleted most of it and replaced it with http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif
Oleg don't want that here!
I have already been banned once, dude. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
Suddenly my posts just went POOF!, even innocuous ones! I was having a great conversation with a couple of people about Australia in WWII and suddenly I could not say a word.
I was a little peeved, because I NEVER EVER start these kind of things. But someone, somewhere says something objectionable and I would reply, politely! The dude who started it gets left alone and I get bumped. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
But, I do enjoy discussions of philosophy, history, politics and religion so much.

The gist is that I beg of you, please keep current events (the current War, exempli gratia) completely out of your posts before I get banned again? Whimper...

p-11.cAce
10-30-2005, 04:00 PM
I understand. As I have no desire myself to get banned I will refrain from adding further to this discussion (though IMHO it is a interesting one). I love debating these issues however you are correct that this is not the place to do so - though it is tempting as so many of the people in this forum are well educated, well spoken, and capable of carrying on interesting and thought provoking discussions.

Pirschjaeger
10-30-2005, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
that is it is less dispicable to persecute someone for their beliefs than for their race? I believe that is what Pirschjager is saying in his response.

Sorry, not right. One is the persecution of people while the other is the persecution of an organization and belief.

Comparing antisenitism with anticatholicism is more difficult than simply comparing apples and oranges. In this case the apple is rotten and the orange is unripe.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
10-30-2005, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
Why when discussing this topic do people feel the need to point out the fact that they or a family member used to be Catholic and no longer are.

To show personal relativity to the topic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

MLudner
10-30-2005, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
that is it is less dispicable to persecute someone for their beliefs than for their race? I believe that is what Pirschjager is saying in his response.

Sorry, not right. One is the persecution of people while the other is the persecution of an organization and belief.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The one leads into the other. All organizations are composed of people, and all ideas originate in people. To persecute the one is to persecute the other. It's like trying to skin a cat without killing it.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Learn to think in terms of the individual, rather than the group. All bigotry has its origins in thinking about people by the groups they're part of rather than as the individuals that they are.

MLudner
10-30-2005, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
I understand. As I have no desire myself to get banned I will refrain from adding further to this discussion (though IMHO it is a interesting one). I love debating these issues however you are correct that this is not the place to do so - though it is tempting as so many of the people in this forum are well educated, well spoken, and capable of carrying on interesting and thought provoking discussions.

I didn't mean that. Stay, by all means. I don't want to chase or cajole anyone out of participation in anything. I am not hostile to you, do not dislike you, and have nothing against you personally.

I just want to avoid current events; they're dangerous. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Pirschjaeger
10-30-2005, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
that is it is less dispicable to persecute someone for their beliefs than for their race? I believe that is what Pirschjager is saying in his response.

Sorry, not right. One is the persecution of people while the other is the persecution of an organization and belief.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The one leads into the other. All organizations are composed of people, and all ideas originate in people. To persecute the one is to persecute the other. It's like trying to skin a cat without killing it.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MLudner, put down the butterknife and step away from "Snowball". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The two can be said as being the same but simply at different stages. Kinda like and infant and an old man. They are basicaaly the same, unless when you are comparing you do it limited in time, such as now. Time is obviously an issue. He said "is". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Fritz

MLudner
10-31-2005, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
that is it is less dispicable to persecute someone for their beliefs than for their race? I believe that is what Pirschjager is saying in his response.

Sorry, not right. One is the persecution of people while the other is the persecution of an organization and belief.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The one leads into the other. All organizations are composed of people, and all ideas originate in people. To persecute the one is to persecute the other. It's like trying to skin a cat without killing it.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MLudner, put down the butterknife and step away from "Snowball". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The two can be said as being the same but simply at different stages. Kinda like and infant and an old man. They are basicaaly the same, unless when you are comparing you do it limited in time, such as now. Time is obviously an issue. He said "is". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But, but ... it's a sharp butterknife! Honest! It's only a little rusty! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I may not take your meaning entirely here, but it seems you are - in fundament - agreeing with my point. Sehr gut. It's the time reference that I don't follow.

(BTW, I love cats and would never harm one. I raised a cat once that had been abandoned by it's mother before his eyes were even open. Wet nursed him, bottle fed him, and raised him.)

Copperhead310th
10-31-2005, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Considering Hitlers' anti-semitism, do you think that his vision of a Thousand Years Reich was indicative of his belief the book of Revelations named him the new Christ?

I wonder if this had anything to do with American involvement in the war.

***Disclaimer***
I HAVE ONLY READ THE 1ST PAGE OF THE THREAD.
So this is mainly directed at Baldie.
it's funny you should mention that. it wasn't long ago i was pondering something simaler.

My questions was this.... Do you think that God used the Allies as his tool of distruction against the third reich to deliver his people (ie Jews) from the clutches of the demise? And the fact is that WAS thier intention was the compleate & total genocide of the jewish people.
Now remember acording to scripture the Hebrews are/were Gods CHOSEN people. At least in the old testement.



Thoughts?

Copperhead310th
10-31-2005, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
Why, Seafire...how rude. I do believe I detect just a hint of sarcasm in your post. I do, don't I?
I take your point, though. It's just, I so enjoy discussions of history and debates of philosophy and politics. It's all fun; intellectually stimulating. But, this is what happens to you when you spend your life with your nose buried in books.

Sarcasm? It`s just a straight fact. some thoughts seem so unplausible as not even require the energy need to think them...

To me, it` impossible for Hitler to ever have a 1000 year Reich as part of Revelations in the Bible. I suppose it`s possible he could`ve been the `anti-christ`, BaldieJR said `the new Christ`, which in the Bible is simply not possible.

Anyway, Hitler`s 1000 year reich was always doomed to failure. God simply could not allow it. If this was allowed then all the Jews would have been wasted and the fulfilment of the scriptures would have been impossible.

Hitler would not and could not succeed in his 1000 year Reich, even if he had somehow taken over the entire world.

How`s that for a bit of thought? But this sort of thing I prefer not to post on a forum... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh be sure Hitler WAS the Anti-Christ. the 1st one at least. If memory serves me right there are 3 listed in the book of revelations.
Please don'nt make me break out the concordance & look them up. But my King James is right here on the desk. i'm tempted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

neural_dream
10-31-2005, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
My questions was this.... Do you think that God used the Allies as his tool of destruction against the third reich to deliver his people (ie Jews) from the clutches of the demise? And the fact is that WAS thier intention was the compleate & total genocide of the jewish people.
Now remember acording to scripture the Hebrews are/were Gods CHOSEN people. At least in the old testament.
Alright, I'll try to save this before it's banned.

If we take the old testament as a guide, then we see that God doesn't use anyone and definitely not peoples to save his favorite ones. Instead he breathes hope, courage and even physical strength in them to fight with all they have against their oppressors. I think all western religions believe in something like that.

MLudner
10-31-2005, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
My questions was this.... Do you think that God used the Allies as his tool of destruction against the third reich to deliver his people (ie Jews) from the clutches of the demise? And the fact is that WAS thier intention was the compleate & total genocide of the jewish people.
Now remember acording to scripture the Hebrews are/were Gods CHOSEN people. At least in the old testament.
Alright, I'll try to save this before it's banned.

If we take the old testament as a guide, then we see that God doesn't use anyone and definitely not peoples to save his favorite ones. Instead he breathes hope, courage and even physical strength in them to fight with all they have against their oppressors. I think all western religions believe in something like that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, actually, according to the Old Testament he would. A king of Israel - name escaping me at the moment - dabled in witchcraft and Israel was conquered as a result. There are other examples, but I'm not close enough to my Bible at the moment...

Copperhead310th
10-31-2005, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neural_dream:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
My questions was this.... Do you think that God used the Allies as his tool of destruction against the third reich to deliver his people (ie Jews) from the clutches of the demise? And the fact is that WAS thier intention was the compleate & total genocide of the jewish people.
Now remember acording to scripture the Hebrews are/were Gods CHOSEN people. At least in the old testament.
Alright, I'll try to save this before it's banned.

If we take the old testament as a guide, then we see that God doesn't use anyone and definitely not peoples to save his favorite ones. Instead he breathes hope, courage and even physical strength in them to fight with all they have against their oppressors. I think all western religions believe in something like that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh, actually, according to the Old Testament he would. A king of Israel - name escaping me at the moment - dabled in witchcraft and Israel was conquered as a result. There are other examples, but I'm not close enough to my Bible at the moment... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is RIGHT. for the most part God is a God of nature....MAny MANY time throughout the Old Testement the Lord has used nature to do his bidding. and He is a paitant God. he waited 120 years after he told Noah he would destroy the earth by flood before he actually did it. (we JUST studdied this in Sunday School)
but on RARE occations he did use man to achive a goal. Remember God's 2nd greatest gift to mankind (Jesus being the greatest- John 3:16) was FREE WILL. But He has a plan for everything and everyone. What's not to say that he did not use the Allies to save the Jewish ppl from destruction much in the way he used Moses to deliver them from Egypt.
That's what i'm trying to get at.

neural_dream
10-31-2005, 06:58 PM
Ok, I see what you mean. However, according to my knowledge on WW1 and WW2 nothing suggests any godly involvement apart from the prayers of those who fought both sides. I suspect Adolf wasn't among them, but still that doesn't make him more of an antichrist than me, you, Churchill and Truman; does it? I'm sure you don't believe that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. I assume that by antichrist you mean someone who's devoted against the establishment of the Christian ideals and not the red mythological creature with wings and a trident.