PDA

View Full Version : Religion: The Root of all Evil



Loki
Monday, January 9th, 2006, 09:13 PM
Just saw this TV documentary, the first in a series. It was brilliant! I thoroughly enjoyed the rationalism shining through, like a beam of light into the darkness of religious belief. :)




Link (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/rootofevil.html)

The Root of All Evil?

Episode 1: The God Delusion

Richard Dawkins is astounded that religious faith is gaining ground in the face of rational, scientific truth based on hard evidence. Julia Bard reports


In this two-part Channel 4 series, Professor Richard Dawkins challenges what he describes as 'a process of non-thinking called faith'. Dawkins is well known for bringing to a wide audience the complex scientific concepts that underpin evolution. His first book, The Selfish Gene (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/findout/books.html#selfishgene) was an international bestseller.

Truth lies and faith

He describes his astonishment that, at the start of the 21st century, religious faith is gaining ground in the face of rational, scientific truth. Science, based on scepticism, investigation and evidence, must continuously test its own concepts and claims. Faith, by definition, defies evidence: it is untested and unshakeable, and is therefore in direct contradiction with science.

In addition, though religions preach morality, peace and hope, in fact, says Dawkins, they bring intolerance, violence and destruction. The growth of extreme fundamentalism in so many religions across the world not only endangers humanity but, he argues, is in conflict with the trend over thousands of years of history for humanity to progress – to become more enlightened and more tolerant.

At the extremes

He explores the state of the three Abrahamic religions in the world today, from the political influence of rich and powerful Christian fundamentalist institutions in America to the deadly clash of Judaism (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/religion/r-jewish.html), Christianity (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/religion/r-christian.html) and Islam (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/religion/r-muslim.html) in the Middle East. He describes the Holy Land as the least enlightened place in the world, a microcosm of the threat to rational values and civilisation posed by religion, whose irrational roots, he says, are nourishing intolerance and murder.

There are plenty of characters to illustrate his thesis. There are fanatics, like the former West Bank settler who has taken the small step of converting from Jewish fundamentalist to Muslim fundamentalist, transferring his hatred from one side of the looking glass to the other. And the frighteningly charismatic leader of America's National Association of Evangelicals, who believes he has been chosen by God to convert Americans through religious gatherings that resemble rock concerts – though to Dawkins they feel more reminiscent of Nuremberg rallies.

Then there are the desperate, like those carrying burdens of disability or disease, who are among the 80,000 people a year who make the pilgrimage to Lourdes. Dawkins does the maths: out of the millions who, over a century, have placed their faith in a miracle restoring them to good health, there have been only 66 authenticated cures. This is hardly a strong record, he says, arguing that it is better for us to embrace truth than false hope.

A sense of belonging

Drawing on such examples, it is not difficult to demolish the claims of religion as fairytales, and dangerous ones at that. But there is more to religion than ancient stories and articles of faith. Dawkins touches on the sense of belonging promised by religious groups but dismisses this as 'seductive group solidarity', which he describes as a 'shared delusion'. In doing so, he glances off the more subtle dilemmas of how religions and religious traditions are woven through people's notions of 'community', 'history' and 'identity'.
Having a sense of one's place in the world is important to everyone but has particular significance for minorities and peoples under political, economic or military pressure. Individuals may even accept Dawkins' atheistic and scientific deconstruction of the myths they have grown up with but still defend and nurture the matrix of institutions, practices and relationships which make them who they are.

Next week: The Virus of Faith

jcs
Monday, January 9th, 2006, 09:37 PM
Discover the origin of truth--read your Heidegger. Dawkins reveals himself to be an imbecile when he speaks about anything but biology.

jcs
Monday, January 9th, 2006, 09:46 PM
I wish he further explored the implications of Darwinism in politics and the like rather than digressing with the obnoxious Creationism vs. Darwinism debate.

Intelligent design and turning to miracles is error for a number of reasons, the greatest of which is probably that of unwarranted assumption: 'we can't explain this in this way nor that way, so it must be God!'--unfortunately for proponents of Intelligent Design, deductive reasoning doesn't work if we are presented with a potential infinite number of explainations.

Anyway, the '99.9% scientific, .1% miracle' psuedo-synthesis is flawed because it looks at things incorrectly. As mentioned above, our lack of decent explaination for evolution does not mean we must resort to miracles. Furthermore, and more importantly, this outlook demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of Biblical allegory.

"Evolutionism is full of lies! God created the world in seven days and created man from clay, woman from man!"
This sounds the same as:
"We can explain science through creation, through miracles and intelligent design."
Why?--because neither opinion seems to grasp the possibility that God and creation can and must be understood spiritually.
Observations and speculations of spiritual import should be viewed as they were intended to be--metaphysically, symbolically, allegorically, or even metaphorically. The wise do not ask, 'Is this true or false?' but, 'In what way is this true? How can I understand the truth of this?'

Ergo, the scientific outlook, which Dawkins epitomises, fails, as does the exoteric-religious world-view.

...

Reason is dismissive of one thing: dismissivity.
(From here (http://bbs.anus.com/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000337))
(overdoing it with emphasis, I know :p )

Loki
Monday, January 9th, 2006, 09:49 PM
Faith has nothing to do with belief, but with truth

Come on, this is an oxymoron if ever I have seen one.... :coffee:

jcs
Monday, January 9th, 2006, 09:54 PM
Come on, this is an oxymoron if ever I have seen one....
What does 'truth' mean? What does 'faith' mean?
Hint: neither are scientific terms. Truth does not mean 'correctness.' Faith does not mean 'belief.' 'Blind faith' is a true oxymoron.

Loki
Monday, January 9th, 2006, 10:00 PM
What does 'truth' mean? What does 'faith' mean?
Hint: neither are scientific terms. Truth does not mean 'correctness.' Faith does not mean 'belief.' 'Blind faith' is a true oxymoron.

You are playing around with synonyms. Faith = belief. In any realistic sense of the word.

It is the truth that the earth revolves around the sun. It is belief (not established truth) that God (or gods) created the earth and life on earth. I think even a child should be able to understand this, unless he has been heavily indoctrinated by irrational religious belief.

Thruthheim
Monday, January 9th, 2006, 11:43 PM
I saw it Loki, at first, i thought it was going to be an attack on Christianity and the West, so i was sceptical, but whence he went onto Judaism and Islam i felt more intrigue and trust in his motives of rationale.

His case in point really came to light when talking of the Islamic-Judaeo conflicts in the Middle East, tha was strong, and the Islamic Convert whom was interviewed made some intelligent assertions about Israel and the current Wars, which many nationalists would relate to.

What did you think of the Evangelicist Preacher? I felt his point when he commented on the Scientific arrogance projected towards those of faith by Richard Dawkins.

I wouldn't be surprised if one day, in the future, the new liberal concept would be NO RELIGION, Liberalism would be the self professed Religion, with which all other faiths would be illegal and punishable as a criminal offence, much like current rational-racial thinking, is punishable, because the state says it's wrong.

My views on Religion are tainted, im not sure what to think, but i know that i do think people should be able to freely believe what they concieve as believable, nobody else, can otherwise attest to them what they should believe.

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, January 10th, 2006, 04:08 AM
"Truth", as I understand, is the assumption of factuality through multiple experiences; induction. I believe that the human tendency toward irrational beliefs can be curbed by eugenics; the "rise" of religion is due to the dysgenic practices of modern populations.

anonymaus
Tuesday, January 10th, 2006, 09:40 AM
I find it difficult to trust anyone with such access to the BBC's broadcast schedule, if only because the BBC is widely acknowledged one of the most biased broadcasters in the civilized world. Dawkins himself may be a well-intentioned rationalist, but attacking the three major religions of the world is unwitting participation in the secular-progressive movement and thus, in my mind, makes him complicit with them.

As much as I disagree with organized religion, with our people worshipping some rebellious semite - a rebellious semite who may not have existed - and with the subsequent Judaic influence on formerly autonomous Nordic tribalism and the very spirits of our kin, it doesn't change this fact:

Christianity is yet the wall through which secularism cannot penetrate.

At a time when so many aspects of our societies are under attack, ceding what remnants we have of them seems a colossal and irresponsible blunder. In the future we can water the seeds, but today and tomorrow and from now until the time is right we must busy ourselves with planting them. There are not yet enough reasons for people to break with Christianity and return to the old faith; there are not even enough courageous men and women to create a popular and functioning modern interpretation of our old faith.

In these times of globalization and the undoing of ethnonationalism, 'nation' has indeed become a term of convenience; we are told, taught and propagandized to believe that, above all, the economy of a so-called 'nation' is of greater importance than any other aspect of it. All of us at tNP know better than this, and it is our responsibility to open the eyes of as many people are willing.

The secular-progressive movement will use ammunition provided by anyone, regardless of their beliefs and they especially do not care for intent--only for purpose and utility. Secularism leaves a vacuum of spirituality and culture in the heart of a nation. A nation is more than political lines on a map, it is more than its gross domestic product and it is much more than a term of convenience. For the time being, however, we simply must choose the least terrible option to protect what is left of our nations, and that least terrible option is Christianity.

One needn't give blind support to Christianity, or adhere to its principles, or believe in god, to denounce secularism and support the beliefs of the majority of whatever nation you live in.

Sigrid
Tuesday, January 10th, 2006, 12:58 PM
I don't agree with the way some people are upholding Christianity because they are terrified of Islam and obsessed with the idea that secularism or atheism are an evil conspiracy. Not true. Science and technology are our destiny and organised religion in our evolving world will destroy us all. It is eating up the minds of Asians and it is turning Americans into evangelical illiterates.

The old Northern spirituality has every potential for being developed and evolved along with science and technology and many secular or agnostic/atheist people today find the retun to a spirituality of natural inclusion in the cosmic web to be an alternative to hardline non-religiousness.

Christianity is opening up in the third world. Surely we don't want our people to go into this? In any case Christianity has a Semitic and Hebrew foundation among other things. Why ask people to take up this when they have their own kind of code? Revivalism is not the way to go. All this rubbish about "magic" is not the way to go. A new kind of Northern spirituality is the best road. And it is possible.

If I even suspected that a right wing political party was going to drag me back to prayers to the Biblical God at school for children and Sunday humiliation again for adults I would kick it in the head and make my own way forward. I am absolutely against this. The western world is moving on. Those who are returning to Semitic religion are usually victims of falling standards in education, of poverty and helplessness, of functional illiteracy or of psychosis.

If we can't go on without Jesus then we deserve everything we are going to get. We are in fact getting along famously without him at last. The secular market is wide open for inclusion in the new right and the idea that there is an evil conspiracy behind everything is in itself ignorant. I blame the internet for much of this false indoctrination. It has been both a blessing and a curse. When I see my own people being absorbed by stupid crazy people talking rubbish to them and presenting it as "truth" or fact I could throw a fit. It's a tragedy.

Loki, I agree with you that the investigation of these religions is going to shine a light into that fetid corner of the human psyche that has always been so gullible and oriented to superstition and "magic". It needs to be brought out into the light of science and stomped on like the insidious little bug that it is.

My opinion only. Feel free to worship the Jews. They'll be so grateful they'll have you fighting their wars and making room for holocaust monuments to them and not to us for another 1000 years, while we protect and defend their promised land and ours goes to hell in a handcart. No thanks. I would go to the stake rather than give them an inch. I rejected Christianity when I was a child. I dumped it lock stock and two smoking barrels when I was fifteen. I am going to keep rejecting it.

Not that it matters. Just my particular view. Time will in its fullness reveal our folly. It always has. And those who are smart enough to know where hidden treasure lies have always survived.

Where does hidden treasure lie? In the citadel of the gene and the gene is programmed to do what is necessary when the time comes and the helmet must be strapped on and the sword must leap to the warrior's hand. And there is more than one way to skin this cat. Ordinary people have massive consumer power that they are not using against the left. They could fell it overnight by bankrupting it if they could only get off their knees, pluck their heads out of the sand and think on these things. God won't do it for us. We have to do it for ourselves and time is running out.

Æthelweard
Tuesday, January 10th, 2006, 02:24 PM
Brilliant program.

Loki's post summed it up perfectly...crazed lunatics of all three major religions making themselves and vis their religions, look like the biggest joke Satan has ever played on humanity. I'm sure all that blind hatred would make Jesus, Mohammed etc turn in their graves, shroud, mountains etc if he could see what religion has done to the World.

This is a fascinating program that I encourage people to see :)

He did mention, however, that nobody nowadays could possibly believe in that chap running around the skies with a big hammer but I chose to ignore that ;)

Sigrid
Tuesday, January 10th, 2006, 02:47 PM
No heathen in his or her right mind believes it either. We have evolved and moved on.

Sigurd
Tuesday, January 10th, 2006, 02:52 PM
There can be many truths to one thing. Truth is what one speaks of to be true, if he/she honestly believes this to be true.
In any other case, Truth is what is being assumed true. "The earth runs around the sun." We assume this to be true, because our scientific advances allow us to - but not too long ago, it was widely believed that the world was flat and that the earth was the center of the solar system.

Sigrid
Tuesday, January 10th, 2006, 03:21 PM
Truth is what can be validated by empirical means which is why scientific truth is the only genuine kind. Religious truth or rather "truth" and so-called "eternal truths" are part of belief systems based on dogma. Because scientific facts are constantly invalidated or validated by people who have special skills our theories can advance and our knowledge base expand. Even philosophy is the art of argumentation by reason through validation or invalidation of premises. Religion, "magic" and all the hocus pocus of superstitious primitive systems reliant on subjective premises belong to our past. We know too much to go back. We know too much to take all this rubbish with us. We have had to leave it behind, with a fond farewell to people who did their best to explain the world. They are our ancestors and we respect them. But we must go on. The cosmic sea calls. We have to launch the dragon ships of space and continue our journey.

newenstad
Tuesday, January 10th, 2006, 07:39 PM
Das Märchen von Christus
Es bleibt wahr: das Märchen von Christus ist Ursache, daß die Welt noch 10/m Jahre stehen kann und niemand recht zu Verstand kommt, weil es ebenso viel Kraft des Wissens, des Verstandes, des Begriffs braucht, um es zu verteidigen als es zu bestreiten. Nun gehn die Generationen durch einander, das Individuum ist ein armes Ding, es erkläre sich für welche Partei es wolle, das Ganze ist nie ein Ganzes, und so schwankt das Menschengeschlecht in einer Lumperei hin und wieder, das alles nichts zu sagen hätte, wenn es nur nicht auf Punkte, die dem Menschen so wesentlich sind, so großen Einfluß hätte. Wir wollen es gut sein lassen. Sieh du dich nur in der Römischen Kirche recht um, und ergötze dich an dem, was in ihr ergötzlich ist.
Aus: Briefe 1788, 9/2673, An Johann Gottfried Herder, 4. September 1888 (S.100)
Digitale Bibliothek Band 10: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Briefe, Tagebücher, Gespräche (S. 4366)

I´ll translate it later (but if someone else want to, feel free to do....)

Nordgau
Tuesday, January 10th, 2006, 09:54 PM
I´ll translate it later

When you're finish you can go on with this here :P:



13. 12. 41:

Der Krieg wird sein Ende nehmen und ich werde meine letzte Lebensaufgabe darin sehen, das Kirchenproblem noch zu klären. Erst dann wird die deutsche Nation ganz gesichert sein. Ich kümmere mich nicht um Glaubenssätze, aber ich dulde nicht, daß ein Pfaffe sich um irdische Sachen kümmert. Die organisierte Lüge muß derart gebrochen werden, daß der Staat absoluter Herr ist.

In meiner Jugend stand ich auf dem Standpunkt: Dynamit! Heute sehe ich ein, man kann das nicht über das Knie brechen. Es muß abfaulen wie ein brandiges Glied. So weit müßte man es bringen, daß auf der Kanzel nur lauter Deppen stehen und vor ihnen nur alte Weiblein sitzen. Die gesunde Jugend ist bei uns.

Gegen eine absolute Staatskirche, wie sie die Engländer haben, habe ich nichts. Aber es kann nicht wahr sein, daß man auf die Dauer durch eine Lüge eine Welt halten kann. Erst im sechsten, siebenten, achten Jahrhundert ist unseren Völkern durch die Fürsten, die es mit den Pfaffen hielten, das Christentum aufgezwungen worden. Vorher haben sie ohne diese Religion gelebt. Ich habe sechs SS-Divisionen, die vollständig kirchenlos sind und die doch mit der größten Seelenruhe sterben.

Christus war ein Arier, aber Paulus hat seine Lehre benutzt, die Unterwelt zu moblisieren und einen Vorbolschewismus zu organisieren; mit dessen Einbruch ging die schöne Klarheit der antiken Welt verloren. Was ist das für ein Gott, der nur Wohlgefallen hat, wenn die Menschen sich vor ihm kasteien! Ein ganz einfaches, klares, einleuchtendes Verfahren: Der liebe Gott setzt die Voraussetzungen für den Sündenfall; nachdem es mit Hilfe des Teufels endlich geklappt hat, bedient er sich einer Jungfrau, um einen Menschen zu gebären, der durch seinen Tod die Menschheit erlöst! Der Mohammedanismus könnte einen doch vielleicht noch für seinen Himmel begeistern. Aber wenn ich mir den faden christlichen Himmel vorstelle! Da hat man einen Richard Wagner auf der Erde gehabt, und drüben hört man Halleluja und sieht nichts als Palmwedel, Kinder im Säuglingsalter und alte Menschen. Ein Insulaner verehrt wenigstens noch Naturkräfte. Das Christentum ist das Tollste, das je ein Menschengehirn in seinem Wahn hervorgebracht hat, eine Verhöhnung von allem Göttlichen. Ein Neger mit seinem Fetisch ist ja einem, der an das Wunder der Verwandlung ernstlich glaubt, turmhoch überlegen.

Es ist gut, daß ich die Pfaffen nicht hereingelassen habe in die Partei. Am 21. März 1933 - Potsdam - war die Frage: Kirche oder nicht Kirche? Ich habe den Staat gegen den Fluch der beiden Konfessionen erobert; wenn ich damals angefangen hätte, mich der Kirche zu bedienen - wir sind an die Gräber gegangen, während die Männer des Staates in der Kirche waren -, so würde ich jetzt das Schicksal des Duce teilen; für sich ist er ein Freigeist, aber er hat begonnen mit Konzessionen, während ich mich an seine Stelle mehr nach der revolutionären Seite gewandt hätte. Ich würde im V(atikan) einmarschieren, die ganze Gesellschaft herausholen. Ich würde sagen: Verzeihung, ich habe mich geirrt! Aber: die sind weg!

Immerhin, wir wollen nicht wünschen, daß die Italiener oder die Spanier das Christentum verlieren: Wer es hat, hat stets Bazillen bei sich!

Sigrid
Wednesday, January 11th, 2006, 06:33 AM
It is true that the masses cannot give it up and are overawed by it, but it is equally true of all mass hysteria and belief. Even celebrity rock stars can make millions faint with adoration. The evil of such a mindbending creed as socialism can be as dangerous and blinding as any faith or fashion. Multiculturalism is the new version of a fusion of Marxism and Christianity. Race is the new Satan and the new witchhunt is for "racists".

If you look at the west you can see how this new creed has insinuated itself into every country that was once Christian. If you look at the third world countries that were once colonial and are now socialist you can see the same mad ideals and laws. If you look at communist China you see a dark dragon taking hold of a whole race and like a Sauron forcing them into labour. If you look at what happened to Russia you see the Rus, once Swedish Vikings who opened up an unknown continent to Asia through trade routes, brought down to ferocity against their own and a paranoia that enslaved the spirit of freedom and adventure. Africa is caught now between socialism and Islam.

The whole world and all of its diverse peoples are the victims in some way or another of the Abrahamic creeds. They are powerful because they lie and they lie about the things that scare the ignorant and the foolish and the weak. They promise things like eternal life that can be bought for a mere apology and a few prayers. They reward people for loving unconditionally when such love is unknown throughout the animal kingdom. For so many people to have taken up such a damaging ideology reveals just how big its lies are and how like an iron fist they hold the soul. There lies the danger of the Abrahamic creeds. Three offshoots from a single branch and this tree has replaced the axis mundi of ancient times and will crush humanity to extinction if the individual cannot break free and by this example encourage others to do the same.

Contemporary atheism and secularism are places where the refugees from these creeds are sheltering. They cannot shelter there forever because their house has no roof. Humanity loses its intrinsic nature when it loses its conception of the world through folkish eyes. This doesn't mean science should be forsaken. Science is not some alien creed. Science is merely knowledge and our cultures have always taught the pursuit of knowledge of the world. It is the Abrahamic creeds that have placed a book of verses between humanity and the truth.

There will be a great rift between the separated groups before anything else. The world is dividing between the believers and the others. The "believers" are considered to be those of the Abrahamic creeds. They are intolerant of others and so in the long run have more in common with one another, as they have had since their tree began to branch out. Often you hear people (Jack Straw of Britain recently, for example) saying that the three Judaic faiths are really one, of one root. This is true and this is why it is imperative that we separate ourselves from this powerful trinity conceived in the Middle East and alien to everything we stand for.

I know people who have converted to Heathenism from evangelical Christianity and they have told me how they feared in a very real sense that they would go to hell. I never had this experience but I believe their stories. I therefore also appreciate how difficult it must be to tell the Great One who made the world that you have had enough of him and are going to walk away. The expectation of a knife in your back must be very real indeed. Many of these people tend to view Heathenism much like a folkish version of Christianity at first and that is why you find so much humility and poverty and non-materialism and hatred of class and wealth and education among the newly converted Heathens today. They are still imbued with the poverty and chastity lie of the hermetic alien creed. They try to adopt nazism as a religion or try to fit nazism to Heathenism. They are in a transition period. That is understandable. But if they manage to break free of this phase they will suddenly realise that for centuries we have been made to look at ourselves as unworthy of success unless it is bequeathed back to God. They still tend to want to hug everyone and accept everyone into their circle for fear of being castigated as nasty and selfish. It is a phase, a dangerous phase.

The newbie secularists and atheists are deeply into racist hunting. Obsessed that everyone who isn't a multiculturalist is somehow a traitor and a nazi. For them there is no other kind of person. You are either with them or you are against them and if you are against them you are a racist and a nazi. It is a foregone conclusion. And they cannot see themselves in the mirror of reality. All they know is attack the infidel and at the moment the infidel is anyone who is not like them. They use Islam to attack Christianity but they hate Islam just as much. It is their intention to render the whole world to their way of thinking and to create of human diversity one race and of societies one world.

That, more than anything else, is why these people must be stopped from achieving their goal. It isn't a question of which god is more powerful or which creed is more suited to brainwashing the greatest number of acolytes, it's a question, for the individual folk groups and nations, of survival at grass roots level, ethnically and culturally.

We live in insane times, but humanity has lived in nothing less on and off for many thousands of years. What is needed is a fresh look at what can be done to stop this insanity and this fascism. First port of call is get rid of the left. That is where Christianity and Marxism have gelled and fused into multiculturalism. Stop the obsessive interest in Hitler and the war by these people. They are turning that period of history into a part of their new creed. Escape from this new evil is their own version of the Flight from Egypt and they are the brave new Israelites heading for the promised land of Shangri-la and racial oblivion in holy integration.

They must be stopped. We owe it to our ancestors to stop them. We must do it as honourably as we can manage. We need to get our people back and stop them from destroying their heritage and their future. They don't see it that way. Which is why whatever we say and do is of utmost importance in portraying our image. They watch all of us and they keep everything we say, even when we are merely ranting or angry or upset. They use it as evidence in the multicultural court to convict us. Bear this in mind. Every word counts. And words have wings.

GreenHeart
Wednesday, January 11th, 2006, 03:05 PM
I hate these kind of programs. It's one of those things people will quote word for word as a witty comment in many situtations. We don't need parrots, we need people who really think.

Why should we blame problems on religion? When in reality it is the corrupt and vile people themselves who cause this. Religion is not bad, and rationalism is not bad. People are bad. And that is the simple truth.

Religion though, at least makes an attempt to keep the bad people in check.

Sigel
Wednesday, January 11th, 2006, 09:33 PM
When you're finish you can go on with this here :P:
"Christus war ein Arier"

Sorry, I think not.

I can understand the wish to portray him thus and to sweep the truth under the carpet, but first of all his crucifixion was “spun” to look like a Jewish choice (otherwise it put the Romans in the frame and they would have never adopted a religion which blamed them for the execution).

Secondly, a whole raft of early right wing European thought had to portray Jesus as Aryan. How else could they find pride in the development of Western civilisation in which the Church had played a significant role?

Houston Chamberlain, whilst acknowledging the “purity” of Aryan thought in Hinduism, nevertheless refuses to hold it anywhere near Christianity. At this time Europe was colonising the world and one of the justifications for its success and advanced status vis a vis the colonized, was Christianity.

People have always made religion into a servant of self-interest. As long as we understand this, there is no problem. It’s when groups start taking it too seriously that it can warp and strangle society.

Some good points on this thread though.

Nordgau
Friday, January 13th, 2006, 07:26 PM
Sorry, I think not.

I can understand the wish to portray him thus and to sweep the truth under the carpet, but first of all his crucifixion was “spun” to look like a Jewish choice (otherwise it put the Romans in the frame and they would have never adopted a religion which blamed them for the execution).

Secondly, a whole raft of early right wing European thought had to portray Jesus as Aryan. How else could they find pride in the development of Western civilisation in which the Church had played a significant role?

Houston Chamberlain, whilst acknowledging the “purity” of Aryan thought in Hinduism, nevertheless refuses to hold it anywhere near Christianity. At this time Europe was colonising the world and one of the justifications for its success and advanced status vis a vis the colonized, was Christianity.

People have always made religion into a servant of self-interest. As long as we understand this, there is no problem. It’s when groups start taking it too seriously that it can warp and strangle society.

Some good points on this thread though.


I also don't think it, but I anyway attached value in the text I quoted not to this one (defensive) sentence introducing a radical condemnation of Christianity, but rather to all the other strong words there (e.g. the one with dynamite or the one with a Negro with his fetish :P). The known position of valuing Jesus still somehow in a positive manner and claiming him for Aryanness, while throwing thunderbolts on all following Christianity, is to be seen as a certain folkish-racialist certain concession to the core of Christianity (id est Jesus) and retrieval of Christianity's honour. And folkish and racialist thinkers themselves had their roots in Christianity.--But while one even could have that position of "good Jesus - bad Paulus" it isn't really necessary for that to claim Jesus as Aryan ...

Chamberlain, however, was one of the strongest advocate of that concept; he had a positive idea of Jesus (in contrast to what he thought about Christianity after him) and tried to prove that Jesus was no Jew. He even published "Words of Christ" ("Worte Christi" (http://www.hschamberlain.net/wortechristi/wortechristi.html#APOLOGIE)). From the "Foundations of the 19th Century" (http://www.hschamberlain.net/grundlagen/division0_index.html):



Let us therefore first ask ourselves, was Christ a Jew by race?

The question seems at the first glance somewhat childish. In the presence of such a personality peculiarities of race shrink into nothingness. An Isaiah, however much he may tower above his contemporaries, remains a thorough Jew; not a word did he utter that did not spring from the history and spirit of his people; even where he mercilessly exposes and condemns what is characteristically Jewish, he proves himself — especially in this — the Jew; in the case of Christ there is not a trace of this. [...]

I have thought it necessary to enter with some fulness into this question — was Christ a Jew in race? — because in not a single work have I found the facts that pertain to it clearly put together. Even in an objectively scientific work like that of Albert Réville, which is influenced by no theological motives — Réville is the well-known Professor of Comparative Religions at the Collège de France — the word Jew is sometimes used to signify the Jewish race, sometimes the Jewish religion.

We read, for example (i. 416), “Galilee was chiefly inhabited by Jews, but Syrian, Phoenician and Greek heathens also made their home there.“ Here accordingly Jew means one who worships the God of the land of Judea, no matter of what race he may claim to be. On the very next page, however, he speaks of an “Aryan race,“ in opposition to a “Jewish nation“; here consequently Jew denotes a definite, limited race which has kept itself pure for centuries. And now follows the profound remark: “The question whether Christ is of Aryan descent is idle. A man belongs to the nation in whose midst he has grown up.“ This is what people called “science“ in the year of grace 1896! To think that at the close of the nineteenth century a professor could still be ignorant that the form of the head and the structure of the brain exercise quite decisive influence upon the form and structure of the thoughts, so that the influence of the surroundings, however great it may be estimated to be, is yet by this initial fact of the physical tendencies confined to definite capacities and possibilities, in other words, has definite paths marked out for it to follow! To think that he could fail to know that the shape of the skull in particular is one of those characteristics which are inherited with ineradicable persistency, so that races are distinguished by craniological measurements, and, in the case of mixed races, the original elements which occur by atavism become still manifest to the investigator! He could believe that the so-called soul has its abode outside the body, and leads the latter like a puppet by the nose. O Middle Ages! when will your night leave us? When will men understand that form is not an unimportant accident, a mere chance, but an expression of the innermost being? that in this very point the two worlds, the inner and the outer, the visible and the invisible, touch? I have spoken of the human personality as the mysterium magnum of existence; now this inscrutable wonder shows itself in its visible form to the eye and the investigating understanding. And exactly as the possible forms of a building are determined and limited in essential points by the nature of the building material, so the possible form of a human being, his inner and his outer, are defined in decisively essential points by the inherited material of which this new personality is composed. It certainly may happen that too much importance is attached to the idea of race: we detract thereby from the autonomy of personality and run the risk of undervaluing the great power of ideas; besides, this whole question of race is infinitely more complicated than the layman imagines; it belongs wholly to the sphere of anthropological anatomy and cannot be solved by any dicta of the authorities on language and history. Yet it will not do simply to put race aside as a negligible quantity; still less will it do to proclaim anything directly false about race and to let such an historical lie crystallise into an indisputable dogma. Whoever makes the assertion that Christ was a Jew is either ignorant or insincere: ignorant when he confuses religion and race, insincere when he knows the history of Galilee and partly conceals, partly distorts the very entangled facts in favour of his religious prejudices or, it may be, to curry favour with the Jews. The probability that Christ was no Jew, that He had not a drop of genuinely Jewish blood in his veins, is so great that it is almost equivalent to a certainty. To what race did He belong? This is a question that cannot be answered at all. Since the land lay between Phoenicia and Syria, which in its south-western portion was strongly imbued with Semitic blood, and in addition had never been quite cleared of its former mixed-Israelitish (but at no time Jewish) population, the probability of a descent principally Semitic is very great. But whoever has even casually glanced at the race-babel of the Assyrian empire * and then learns that colonists from all parts of this empire settled in that former home of Israel, will be baffled by the question. It is indeed possible that in some of these groups of colonists there prevailed a tradition of marrying among themselves, whereby a tribe would have kept itself pure; that this, however, should have been kept up more than five hundred years is almost unthinkable; the very conversion to the Jewish faith had gradually obliterated those tribal differences which at first had been maintained by religious customs brought from their old homes (2 Kings, xvii. 29). We hear that in later times Greeks too migrated thither; in any case they belonged to the poorest classes, and accepted immediately the “god of the country“! Only one assertion can therefore be made on a sound historical basis: in that whole region there was only one single pure race, a race which by painfully scrupulous measures protected itself from all mingling with other nations — the Jewish; that Jesus Christ did not belong to it can be regarded as certain. Every further statement is hypothetical.

This result, though essentially negative, is of great value; it means an important contribution to the right knowledge of the personality of Christ, and at the same time to the understanding of its effectiveness up to the present day as well as to the disentanglement of the wildly confused clue of contradictory ideas and false conceptions, which has wound itself around the simple, transparent truth. It is time to go deeper. The outward connection is less important than the inner; now and now only do we come to the decisive question: how far does Christ as a moral fact belong to Judaism and how far does He not? To fix this once for all, we shall have to make a series of important distinctions, for which I beg the fullest attention of the reader.

Christ is, quite generally — indeed, perhaps universally — represented as the perfecter of Judaism, that is to say, of the religious ideas of the Jews. Even the orthodox Jews, though they cannot exactly honour Him as the perfecter, behold in Him an offshoot from their tree and proudly regard all Christianity as an appendix to Judaism. That, I am firmly convinced, is a mistake; it is an inherited delusion, one of those opinions that we drink in with our mother‘s milk and about which in consequence the free-thinker never comes to his senses any more than the strictly orthodox Churchman. Certainly Christ stood in direct relation to Judaism, and the influence of Judaism, in the first place upon the moulding of His personality and in a still higher degree upon the development and history of Christianity is so great, definite and essential, that every attempt to deny it must lead to nonsensical results; but this influence is only in the smallest degree a religious one. Therein lies the heart of the error.

Loki
Saturday, January 14th, 2006, 09:56 PM
To hear Richard Dawkins's interview about his documentary "Root of All Evil", go here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/fivelive_aod.shtml?fivelive/richard_dawkins).

Sigrid
Sunday, January 15th, 2006, 05:17 AM
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Whether you like Mr Humphries or not, this web site has a wealth of resources on various aspects and bibliographical details for those who want to pursue certain issues in depth. It's a place you can spend a lot of time on and learn a great deal you didn't know. It's a place Christians should visit, just to get some perpsective on their adopted faith. It's a place Muslims should visit for the same reason. Jews needn't bother because they already know all this stuff. :P

Sigel
Monday, January 16th, 2006, 08:13 PM
I also don't think it
I wouldn't have suspected you of thinking it for a second.


Chamberlain, however, was one of the strongest advocate of that concept
Yes, thanks for the excerpt. It’s a pity to see Houston struggling in such a fashion but I guess he was a product of his times.
A good many people have done their bit to “rescue” Christianity; Luther to name but one. It seems that it has nevertheless, in the West, been quite impossible to extricate the monotheistic proposition from the chains of a modified Semitic religion.

But then again, who cares?

Cordelio
Tuesday, January 24th, 2006, 05:00 PM
Christian churches are closing throughout Western Europe and in Northeastern USA. There is no Christian revival that I am aware of. The churches are largely empty in France, and about half of the males you see in Parisian churches are black. Anglican churches are closing in England and many are sold to muslims to become mosques. I saw a TV program which said that 14,000 Brits, most of them women, have in recent years converted to Islam: the women like wearing the Islamic veil and baggy clothes since they no longer have to worry about their looks or their weight.

Sigrid
Tuesday, January 24th, 2006, 05:11 PM
I saw a TV program which said that 14,000 Brits, most of them women, have in recent years converted to Islam: the women like wearing the Islamic veil and baggy clothes since they no longer have to worry about their looks or their weight.

If people convert to a religion for that reason then we are well rid of them. :scratch:

ikki
Tuesday, January 24th, 2006, 05:12 PM
Im just wondering what the islamics are looking for, afterall, isnt it the worst possible scenario when the religously disintrested westerners join up for political favours... and then show the same complete disintrest in that religion too.

Heh, that might even work as a destroyer of islam.. :D

Sigrid
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 04:32 AM
You're right, Ikki, it's inevitable. Their faith will be contaminated by foreign ideas. Never export your ideology. It often undergoes a sea change. That is the price they will pay for emigration.

FadeTheButcher
Friday, February 3rd, 2006, 05:29 AM
This attack on religion in the name of rationalism makes little sense. There is no necessary conflict between reason and faith. In fact, religious faith throughout history has been an important foundation supporting rational inquiry. The real enemies of modern rationalism stem from the secular sphere. The most notorious of all is political correctness.

Sigrid
Friday, February 3rd, 2006, 05:52 AM
I don't agree. It makes perfect sense. The Hebrew faith and modern western science are deadly enemies. Rationalism (the favoured worldview of western thinkers)and the Hebrew faith are also deadly enemies. And it is the Abrahamic faiths with which the west is grappling. The entire world is dominated by one of the three. We live, to all intents and purposes, and have for centuries, in a world dominated by Hebrew thinking and spirituality. Mohammed's father was a Jew and his mother was a Christian apparently. Enough said. The world needs to get shot of this ballast. Just my opinion, but I'll never change it.

Loki
Friday, February 3rd, 2006, 08:02 AM
This attack on religion in the name of rationalism makes little sense. There is no necessary conflict between reason and faith. In fact, religious faith throughout history has been an important foundation supporting rational inquiry. The real enemies of modern rationalism stem from the secular sphere. The most notorious of all is political correctness.

Political correctness is mainly employed today to placate intolerant religious nuts.

Sigrid
Friday, February 3rd, 2006, 10:22 AM
Political correctness is mainly employed today to placate intolerant religious nuts.

And let it be remembered that religion created intolerant nuts in the first place, which is why they prop one another up from Islam to multiculturalism in an effort to seem normal and "rational" when all the time it is they who are unbalanced and intolerant and exceedingly and increasingly sexist and racist.
:loki: