Patrick Look At This. It's Important.

[OkieMan]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Which religion..., posted by soltero on Jan 6, 2005

Soltero and other gentlemen,
I have found your discussions very interesting, and you are certainly all entitled to your own opinions.  However, Soltero, you are mistaken when you said that Judaism is just a religion, and not a race.  Haven't you read in the Old Testament of the Bible when in several of the books of the Bible they went into detail of the geneologies or lineage of the "Twelve Tribes of Israel"?  So, to make my point Judaism is very distinct, in that, it is both a religion and a race.  But, I will add to that, that the "12 Tribes of Israel" were dispersed over the entire globe.    In fact, it has happened on more than one occasion that they were forced from their "Homeland" throughout the entire ancient world (ie Babylonian Empire, Roman Empire, etc).  In fact, today, none of the Jews know what "tribe" they belong to.  I too am a student of history.
When they became a soverign nation again in 1948, then they were once again allowed to come back from these many parts of the world and settle once again, in the "Land of their Fathers".  I am not a Jew, but I am a Christian and a student of the Bible.  Hitler's hatred of the Jews was very terrible; but then again, all hatred is terrible; especially violent hatred.  The Islamic terrorists of today show that!

                             OkieMan

[soltero]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Which religion..., posted by OkieMan on Jan 6, 2005

If you go back and follow the breakdown of those 12 tribes, OkieMan, you will see that they are  representative of every race on the planet. With that being so, I would assume that since every race is represented within the 12 tribes, we are all the same (under Judaism) so it is very hard to make Judaism racial more so than theological. Last time I checked, they didn't ask for DNA samples whenever someone wanted to convert, either. As far as labeling Jews a race in order to give them the "Promised Land", that was a political ploy as far as most of the political bodies involved have included keeping church and state seperate in their constitutions, and would have looked extremely hypocritical otherwise. It is a thin veil that makes it easier for the uninformed to swallow displacing people from their homes. That area is the "homeland" of more than one religion (at least three), and no one has any more "God given" right to it than anyone else. Let me please reiterate that it is my view that religion in itself is a great thing, but there will always be someone who will use whatever the masses believe in to promote their own agenda. Anyone who disagrees with that is naive in my opinion. I can go into more historical detail as far as written documents including the Old Testament to attempt to prove why I have my OPINIONS, but I am not getting paid here. This is all just talk until somebody wants to pull out some cash. (LOL)...

[thunderbolt]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which religion..., posted by soltero on Jan 6, 2005

Jews are not a separate race (even though Nazis thought they were), they are rather a separate ethnic group (actually, more like two) that originated in the Middle East and then scattered around the world, predominantly in Europe, North Africa and Middle East, and recently the Americas.  Obviously they have intermarried over the centuries to some extent, but for the most part, they are descendants of ancient Jews of ancient Judeah.

This century they had an opportunity to re-establish their statehood, and they did that, and so far they have retained it.

As far as their origins before that, twelve tribes, etc, that's half-mythical anyway, but they did exist as a nation in the recorded history and on the territory that they have right now.

Religions don't have homelands, nations do.  Religions do have sacred sites, and many of those for christianity and islam are located in Israel; however, Israel has not impeded access to them.

Regarding people being displaced from their homes, it was tragic, but it happened to both sides of the conflict.  In fact, most of the Jews who settled in Israel came from the same region, from the neighboring Middle Eastern countries, and the large-scale immigration from FSU countries came much later.

[soltero]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Which religion....., posted by thunderbolt on Jan 6, 2005

One thing about the powers that be that I am sure of is that they know the truth about what is and what isn't. In order to corrupt the truth, first you have to know the truth. I don't think that the Nazis considered the Jews a race. That was just the propaganda put out to make it more digestable for Joe Average and to get him on their side. What better way to boost a failing economy and national pride than to tell the masses that they have a common enemy if they are gullible enough to believe it, and they are. It started with the Jews because they had most of the money, and it worked so well, I guess Hitler thought he could include the rest of the world since he was on a roll. What has come to pass will come again as long as the situation, timing, and the right (or wrong) person has the ability to twist the truth and present it in a manner that is acceptable enough to sway someone else who can be swayed. The only thing that can prevent that is constantly questioning everything and forming your own opinion within the confines of what is right and what is wrong. No one needs someone else to tell you that. You can feel it. Like you said, a good person is going to be a good person and vice versa.

[thunderbolt]

... in response to Which religion..., posted by surfscum on Jan 5, 2005

Regarding the 'atheistic despotism'...  It is a frequent argument; however, it is false.

The regimes you described basically substituted the dogma of religion with their own.  They had their own 'saints', their own commandments, their own very clear and precise notions of good and evil.  There is basically no difference in structure of socialism, nazism, etc and the major religions.  And thus they inherited the destructive qualities of organized religions: considering non-believers to be evil (and sometimes not even human), and therefore not worthy of life (in extreme forms) or at the very least basic rights and access to an equal and fair debate.

Further, I would not put Lenin and Mao in that company; the other three definitely belong together though.

[surfscum]

... in response to Re: Which religion..., posted by thunderbolt on Jan 5, 2005

There is a huge difference, in fact it is the main difference between Naziism, communism, etc. and the 3 main monotheistic faiths: they take man and make him a god. Man always gets into trouble when he ascribes power to himself without authority. When men TRULY believe they are responsible to a higher being for their actions, they become better men.

Also, to say that there is no difference between socialism, nazism and religion is an interesting, if flawed analysis. You're saying politics and religion are the same: they aren't, but for people without God something has to take his place and that often is politics. It's the idea of creating heaven on earth.

[thunderbolt]

... in response to Re: Re: Which religion..., posted by surfscum on Jan 5, 2005

So Osama does not beieve in creating heaven on earth, and that makes him better?  Yes, there are differences between christianity and communism, which I never denied; however, the structure of communism resembles that of the church.  Yes, they took 'men' and made them 'gods', but the same can be said about the church; however, it is a question of faith, and the last thing I want to do is insult feelings of many people for no reason.

Basically, you focus on details that are different; I was talking about the structure.  Both the Nazis and the Communists had their morality, their 'saints', their 'sacred texts', their rituals, 'prophets', army of priests-comissars, etc.  Frankly, the reason they both attacked established religion was b/c they were a rival and a competitor.

And religion does not make a person better; the actual situation is in reverse.  If a person is good, virtuous, etc, he will eventually be appalled by all the evil and injustice in this world; the religion does explain it and ensures that the good will eventually win, that's the  attraction of religion.  And a person who is inspired by the hope that religion offers, by its confirmation of his morality and character, can do a lot of good to others.  However, a bad person will not become 'good' b/c he found religion.

[thunderbolt]

... in response to Re: the Missionaries wiped out more cult..., posted by soltero on Jan 5, 2005

I do agree with you that in general religion is responsible for a lot of deaths and violence.  Sad but true.

However, in many countries in the Americas missionaries did actually fight to protect the Natives (at least those who had converted and lived in their missions) against slaughter and slavery, with Paraguay being the most outstanding example.  Even these days the church was the only force that voiced its protest against violence towards peasants (who were pretty much Indians) in Salvador and CA in general, with their bishop and many priests even being gunned down by the governement and paramilitaries.  In Alaska and Siberia, Russian missionaries did save the Natives there from slavery as well.  I am not Catholic as you know, just being objective.

[soltero]

... in response to Re: Re: the Missionaries wiped out more ..., posted by thunderbolt on Jan 5, 2005

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I am not saying that the missionaries were or are bad people and that they haven't done good or intended to do good. I am just saying that an oak in a hurricane will break while a blade of grass will bend. Anyone who has such rigid beliefs will end up getting used and twisted by someone else. True tolerance is accepting others, not converting them. That's all that I am saying. I don't think that Dr. Aaron posted what he posted because he was trying to be anything but righteous. I just think that way of thinking is ignorant when it is presented as more than an opinion. I gave as an example the role of the missionary which was similar. I am sure that examples can be found to support the similarity of his and their positions. In short, don't come into my house and tell me I am wrong (and this is not directed at you), because you don't live here. I can walk into your house and probably find just as much going on that I don't agree with...(I really need to find a way to make my point more succinctly (smile).

[thunderbolt]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: the Missionaries wiped out m..., posted by soltero on Jan 5, 2005

I do see the point you are making.  It's just the example you brought up to support it is neither pertinent, nor really a good example, that's all. :-)

[soltero]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: the Missionaries wiped o..., posted by thunderbolt on Jan 5, 2005

I can accept that. Calling out the missionaries does step on a lot of people's sensibilities.

[Malandro]

... in response to Re: the Missionaries wiped out more cult..., posted by soltero on Jan 5, 2005

I think you are mixing people with culture.  

either way, the missionaries themselves were not responsible for the deaths throughout history.  and the entire colonization process, not just attempts at religious conversion, is responsible for the subjugation or elimination of cultures.

[soltero]

... in response to OK, then how do disease and famine wipe ..., posted by Malandro on Jan 5, 2005

I will say that they may have had the best of intentions, but anytime you dismiss someone else as less than because they don't agree with you or follow your prescribed doctrine, you are coming from a position of ignorance and setting yourself up to be used by someone else who knows better. Missionaries were a part of the process, and a major part. They were always sent first. I doubt very seriously that there would have been any colonization without them. Telling people that you are the spokesman for God and that they should "turn the other cheek" is kinda foul to me. Most converted tribes usually got enslaved or killed by their unconverted neighbors or the settlers to whose religion they had converted. The original colonial expeditions usually got their asses handed to them on the end of a spear. In come the missionaries, followed by the armies. Do you really think that wasn't a plan?

[Malandro]

... in response to Re: OK, then how do disease and famine w..., posted by soltero on Jan 5, 2005

the US was colonized without missionaries.  It was not a major part of the development of the US at all.  

I am not so sure that the converted tribes were killed by their unconverted neighbors.  rather, it was the unconverted neighbors that were slaughtered by the Spanish armies.  slavery was implemented for sure.

I am not so certain that the original colonial expeditions got their asses handed to them on a spear is very accurate.   Pedro Alvarado conquered Guatemala and other parts of central america with just over 200 soldiers.  Likewise, Cortez took Mexico with a few hundred soldiers as well.

I don't believe the "plan" was to pacify the Indians with religion and then slaughter them with soldiers.  If the "plan" was to erradicate the indians to begin with they simply would have done more of a US model war rather than making an attempt at conversion.

since Spain was so closely tied with Rome there was tremendous pressure NOT to slaughter the Indians.

[soltero]

... in response to Oklahoma put up a better fight than some..., posted by Malandro on Jan 5, 2005

England had a very unique way of colonization which was very different than most other European countries. Being a relatively small island with space issues, they just emptied their prisons. Here, in Australia, and South Africa, the first colonists were usually murderers, prostitutes, rapists, and thieves. They didn't need soldiers or missionaries. But the actual colonization of North America started before England came into the picture. The Dutch, Spanish, and the French were here first. The rest is all subjective to historical interpretation. No one wants to slaughter a potential work force, conversion makes more sense. The criminally insane didn't care as they were, well, criminally insane. As always, it depends on perspective. To think that cultures that existed for thousands of years needed "help" is kinda arrogant. This can be debated ad nauseam.