What is the most misunderstood historical event?

Who do you think has been predominately responsible for antisemitism in Western society? Atheists?

Oh. That's right. You actually buy into the current revisionist history myth that Germany was predominately atheist during WWII instead of overwhelmingly Christian, since Hitler was such a hypocritical nut when it came to religious beliefs.

Nowhere in the Bible is it found to kill all Jews. While of course, Christians would want them to become Christians, they are not to force them by death.

Ironically, that is what I have been stating all along. :goodjob:

Now apply it to all Muslims as well so that this perspective isn't completely hypocritical.

I am critical of all religions. But I am particularly critical of religious hypocrisy. What you support is really no different than what the vast majority of Muslims support. It is just a slightly different form of the very same Abrahamic mythology written by humans instead of a god.

I am not actually defending Islam at all, which should be obvious if you took the time to read what I have posted. What I am speaking out against is using a blatant double standard to judge Islam differently than any other Abrahmic religion where they all actually worship the very same god.

Do you realize that Muslims consider Jesus to be another prophet much like Mohammed? That what he said is inexorably part of their religion as well?

Thanks for clarifying your position.

I do realise Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet, but he is more of like a after thought and just added in. Muslims are taught to be following the life of Muhammed and to be like he was.

Do I visit Catholic and Islamic hate sites to get or reinforce my opinions? No. Do you?

Islam is clearly a branch of the very same faith. But to claim that its roots are with the Roman Catholic Church instead of the teachings of Jesus is just another attempt by Protestants to smear them both.

No, I do not, but I have acquired information from people and sources that you may consider islamiphobic. What I believe a person needs to do is acquire the information on both sides even from 'hate' sites if need be, and then make the balanced opinion on both.

There are many similarities with what the Catholic Church eventually added, in Islam.

Do you realize that Newton has been called a "heretic" in modern times due to his wacky religious fanaticism?

There is no doubt Newton was a brilliant scientist. He may have even been the greatest scientist who ever lived. But his personal life was a complete shambles, and his views outside of science were weird beyond imagination.

Using the views of Newton and others to rationalize your own opinions is called the fallacy of appeal to authority. It might even be somewhat relevant if his chosen field of study where he was an acknowledged expert was mythology instead of physics. But as a scientist, his opinions carry no more weight than those of Richard Dawkins, or any number of other atheists who understand far more about evolution and modern science than Newton ever did.

I am aware some of his beliefs were not completely in-line with the church at his time or later. I do not know that much what it contained though.


Other than the Orthodox Church of course, the religion of the Byzantine Empire, the Rus and various Balkan states.

Yes, but both the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church were still linked in some way, and many people in the Crusades were most likely Catholics (mainly referring to the 2nd, and the 3rd, maybe the 4th).

Except that Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and so on presumably had been Catholics before the Reformation, unlike Muhammad and his followers, who never had been. Yes, Islam is an Abrahamic faith, but I'd thought that Islam would have been most affected by Chalcedonian/Orthodox Christianity (rather than by Rome), given their geographical proximity and later conquests of Byzantine territory.

Perhaps I overstated something here, but the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church did most likely have some influence on the Arabian peninsula and many of the teachings are very similar.
 
... many of the teachings are very similar.

Definitely. Other than the filioque, the date of Easter and other seemingly minor points, their differences were mainly political.
 
Where has Christians killed Jews? and does the actions of some professing Christians account for all professing Christians? Why are you so critical of Christians, and not the same for Islam as well? Do you know that Islam is a break-off of the Roman Catholic Church?

Is this a joke?

Tyerman said:
On 3 May 1096, the Jewish Sabbath, Count Emich's troops attacked the Jews at Speyer, near to his estates, killing a dozen of them who refused baptism, before the bishop came to their rescue. One woman committed suicide rather than submit to the Christians. The persecutors received the help of townspeople, as Bishop John punished some of them by having their hands cut off, a penalty for theft. Those Jews who had fled to the surrounding countryside or had accepted baptism returned under the bishop's protection, the apostates allowed to revert to Judaism; a new synagogue was begun. Steven Runciman rather astonishingly dismisses this episode as 'not a very impressive attack'. Perhaps the walls prescribed in 1084 proved their use. Over a fortnight later, on 18 May, Emich arrived at Worms where he managed to mobilize more effective local assistance, including peasants from the countryside as well as burghers. Given the proximity of Emich's own lands, the count was probably exploiting known local tensions. Jews found in their quarter were massacred, the Torah Scrolls desecrated; those who had fled to the protection of the bishop's palace were besieged and, on 20 May, slaughtered. Some resisted forcible conversion, one of the bishop's relatives being killed; others may have taken the rout of suicide. Hundreds died.

The desctruction of the Jews of Mainz attracted the most detailed attention, later held up to Jewish audiences as a model of fortitude under persecution and of holy martyrdom. Mainz was a major centre of Jewish learning and culture as well as business. Jewish leaders were prominent in commerce; the chief rabbi Kalonymos, on good terms with the archbishop and recognized by the emperor. On Emich's appearance before their gates, which the archbishop had ordered to be shut against him, some townspeople provoked riots. The Jewish leaders bribed the archbishop to protect them and tried to buy off Emich with a gift of seven pounds of gold, to no avail. The gate were oppened on 26 May; the killing and looting lasted two days. The archbishop reneged on his promise of protection and fled; the Jews sheltering in his palace, despite initial vigorous armed resistance, were slaughtered with the rest. The search for money and Jews throughout the city was thorough. The synagogue was destroyed in the mayhem; some Jews apostatized; others chose suicide. The story of the young mother Rachel's sacrifice of her four children, circulated for the edification of the faithful in the twelfth century, is grim. Her youngest, Aaron, terrified at seeing the deaths of his siblings, begged his mother to spare him, running away to hid under a box.

"When this pious woman had completed sacrificing her three children to their Creator, she raised her voice and called to her son: 'Aaron, Aaron, where are you? I will not spare you either, or have mercy on you.' She drew him out by his feet from under the box where he had hidden and slaughtered him before the Exalted and Lofty God."

[Further descriptions of massacre and plunder of Jewish communities along the Rhine]

Emich of Flonheim's campaign against the prosperous Jewish communities was deliberate, far from mindless vandalism. The rhetoric, not least that recorded in the harrowingly full Jewish accounts of the pogroms, was religious, but the motive may have been financial. It was not that the crusaders were in debt to the Jews, merely that many had sold or pledged their patrimonies and still faced further expense. For leaders such as Emich, cash meant power and authority. Locals, including some bishops, erstwhile protectors, exploited the crusaders' greed by extorting protection money from the helpless Jews as well as looting.

[...]

Nothing in official Christian doctrin justified slaying Jews. Pope Alexander II had explicitly prohibited it when drawing a careful distinction between them and Muslims in 1063. No justification of holy war could embrace victimization of those whom the Christians ruled anyway, hence the repeated attempts to blame the Jews of subversion and plotting the destruction of Christendom to excuse persecution. However the preaching of the cross emphasized meritorious Christian violence, the legitimacy of revenge and religious vendetta and the suffering of Christ Crucified. Christian sources record how such messages were translated into a gospel of indiscriminate religious hate. Crusaders at Rouen thought it absurd to campaign against God's enemies in the east 'when in front of our eyes are the Jews, of all races the most hostile to God'. Albert of Aachen noted that recruits to Emich's army at Mainz insisted that killing the Jews was the first act of their campaign against the 'enemies of the Christian faith'. [...] According to a disapproving German witness, Ekkehard of Aura, the persecutors were zealous Christians who 'took pains to destroy utterly the execrable Jews' either by death or forced conversion.

You get the point. This is just one event. I could go further - we could talk about the Spanish Inquisition or Blood Libel. I could fill dozens of posts with examples of Jewish slaughter during the 30 Years' War. But yeah. "No Christian ever killed a Jew?" Laughable.
 
You get the point. This is just one event. I could go further - we could talk about the Spanish Inquisition or Blood Libel. I could fill dozens of posts with examples of Jewish slaughter during the 30 Years' War. But yeah. "No Christian ever killed a Jew?" Laughable.

I never said no Christian ever killed a Jew. I knew it probably happened, but I could not recall an event of killing of large numbers around this time period. I was asking for you or someone to show me an article that showed it. You have now done this. But remember Protestants also suffered the same treatment given by the Catholics. As I said, the actions by the Catholics show their beliefs at the time.

Do not think I dont go back into history to look for these events. I enjoy reading history and discovering more about certain civilizations and their history. It is one of my favourite subjects and I find it quite annoying it is being dismissed as not really worth studying and doesnt really help in your later life, in many schools today. This is wrong, as knowledge of the past helps you to properly analyze current events and most often events have very close similarities to ones that have happened in the past.
 
But remember Protestants also suffered the same treatment given by the Catholics. As I said, the actions by the Catholics show their beliefs at the time.

Yes and vice versa. The Protestants were every bit as ruthless at various times as the Catholics were. You need only look to the 30 Years War, the War of the Schmalkaldic League, The Münster Revolt, the 9 Years' War (the Irish one), etc.
 
So Hitler was treating Christians poorly even though he was not specifically targeting them for death, but ISIS is not treating Muslims poorly even though it is specifically targeting certain Muslims for death?

Hitler did want to get rid of Christianity and clergymen who opposed him were often executed. If he had won the war and the Reich survived Christianity would have been outlawed eventually.
 
No, I do not, but I have acquired information from people and sources that you may consider islamiphobic. What I believe a person needs to do is acquire the information on both sides even from 'hate' sites if need be, and then make the balanced opinion on both.

Sure, but when one side says don't murder anyone, and the other side says murder a million people, you don't compromise with let's murder five hundred thousand.
 
No, I do not, but I have acquired information from people and sources that you may consider islamiphobic. What I believe a person needs to do is acquire the information on both sides even from 'hate' sites if need be, and then make the balanced opinion on both.

I hate being that guy (and I've already been that guy tonight), but this is textbook argument to moderation
 
Sure, but when one side says don't murder anyone, and the other side says murder a million people, you don't compromise with let's murder five hundred thousand.

I hate being that guy (and I've already been that guy tonight), but this is textbook argument to moderation

I didnt say act in the middle, but have the information on both sides and see the arguments put forward. But yes, there is times when its wrong to be in the middle on certain issues.
 
Hitler did want to get rid of Christianity and clergymen who opposed him were often executed. If he had won the war and the Reich survived Christianity would have been outlawed eventually.
It is far more complicated than that.
Assuming Hitler's ramblings are a reflection of his sincerely held long-run beliefs (remember, the guy was crazy, he didn't exactly have a coherent plan) his future plans were for Nazism and Nazism. In the short term, that didn't stop him from getting a lot of support from the "German Christian" movement (which mainly consisted of 'Blood and Soil' style nutters), saying that Nazism and Christianity were not incompatible, signing the Concordat, and let us not forget the only party to vote against the Enabling Act were the Social Democrats. Had the Catholic Center Party not voted for the Enabling Act, Hitler likely would have been out of office come next election. The Nazis had been elected as a protest vote and were seeing their poll numbers fall, to around 30% IIRC, which meant they would have lost in the next election had the shambling corpse of the "Grand Coalition" lurched back into life.

The only German political party that actually stood up to Hitler where it mattered were the socialists and communists. The rest preferred to make a Faustian bargain hoping that they could preserve their little corner of German society by bending over and hoping Hitler would be gentle.

Hitler and the Nazis had a habit of executing and oppressing anybody they didn't like; it was kind of their thing.
 
It is far more complicated than that.
Assuming Hitler's ramblings are a reflection of his sincerely held long-run beliefs (remember, the guy was crazy, he didn't exactly have a coherent plan) his future plans were for Nazism and Nazism. In the short term, that didn't stop him from getting a lot of support from the "German Christian" movement (which mainly consisted of 'Blood and Soil' style nutters), saying that Nazism and Christianity were not incompatible, signing the Concordat, and let us not forget the only party to vote against the Enabling Act were the Social Democrats. Had the Catholic Center Party not voted for the Enabling Act, Hitler likely would have been out of office come next election. The Nazis had been elected as a protest vote and were seeing their poll numbers fall, to around 30% IIRC, which meant they would have lost in the next election had the shambling corpse of the "Grand Coalition" lurched back into life.

The only German political party that actually stood up to Hitler where it mattered were the socialists and communists. The rest preferred to make a Faustian bargain hoping that they could preserve their little corner of German society by bending over and hoping Hitler would be gentle.

Hitler and the Nazis had a habit of executing and oppressing anybody they didn't like; it was kind of their thing.

Hitler also had promised to bring Germany out of its recession that had occurred from World War I. The economic situation of Germany was in a very bad state around this time, and if Kaiser Wilhelm was not forced off the throne, Hitler probably would not have come to power. Hitler did accomplish this, but not by socialism which his party actually was for. He did it by creating a good environment for employment, and also war. War put the work force on maximum efficiency, but it also was only a short-term solution. Since Hitler was actually improving the economic situation (although the methods used may not be profitable long-term), the people seemed to be fine with him in power, although they may not agree with all his ideas.
 
It is far more complicated than that.
Assuming Hitler's ramblings are a reflection of his sincerely held long-run beliefs (remember, the guy was crazy, he didn't exactly have a coherent plan) his future plans were for Nazism and Nazism. In the short term, that didn't stop him from getting a lot of support from the "German Christian" movement (which mainly consisted of 'Blood and Soil' style nutters), saying that Nazism and Christianity were not incompatible, signing the Concordat, and let us not forget the only party to vote against the Enabling Act were the Social Democrats. Had the Catholic Center Party not voted for the Enabling Act, Hitler likely would have been out of office come next election. The Nazis had been elected as a protest vote and were seeing their poll numbers fall, to around 30% IIRC, which meant they would have lost in the next election had the shambling corpse of the "Grand Coalition" lurched back into life.

The only German political party that actually stood up to Hitler where it mattered were the socialists and communists. The rest preferred to make a Faustian bargain hoping that they could preserve their little corner of German society by bending over and hoping Hitler would be gentle.

Hitler and the Nazis had a habit of executing and oppressing anybody they didn't like; it was kind of their thing.

I'm aware that many German Christians supported the Nazis, and those who did should be ashamed. Hitler did want to see Germany de-Christianized but he wasn't open about it. Near the end of his life he said that he wished that the Germans had been Muslims. So that's why I think there would be a gradual low profile campaign against Christianity after the war in Europe had Hitler won.
 
Hitler also had promised to bring Germany out of its recession that had occurred from World War I. The economic situation of Germany was in a very bad state around this time, and if Kaiser Wilhelm was not forced off the throne, Hitler probably would not have come to power. Hitler did accomplish this, but not by socialism which his party actually was for. He did it by creating a good environment for employment, and also war. War put the work force on maximum efficiency, but it also was only a short-term solution. Since Hitler was actually improving the economic situation (although the methods used may not be profitable long-term), the people seemed to be fine with him in power, although they may not agree with all his ideas.
Not quite.
Basically of Hitler's 'good economic ideas' was what he inherited from the Wiemar Republic and Stresemann. (Autobahn? Idea of the Weimar Republic.) The increased economic performance of Nazi German was due to the economy basically cannibalizing itself; whether through taking over Jewish property, fraud, or simply spending more money than they had. I don't remember the exact numbers but I might be able to track them down, come late 1941 when Germany was supposed to repay the Soviet Union for the raw materials it was purchasing on credit, it would have basically bankrupted Nazi Germany and trashed their foreign currency reserves preventing them from importing resources from the few friendly countries left.

Even if Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union and America never entered the war, eventually Nazi Germany would have run out of credit and the self-cannibalism of the Nazi Economy would have seen the entire thing collapse on it.
 
Not quite.
Basically of Hitler's 'good economic ideas' was what he inherited from the Wiemar Republic and Stresemann. (Autobahn? Idea of the Weimar Republic.) The increased economic performance of Nazi German was due to the economy basically cannibalizing itself; whether through taking over Jewish property, fraud, or simply spending more money than they had. I don't remember the exact numbers but I might be able to track them down, come late 1941 when Germany was supposed to repay the Soviet Union for the raw materials it was purchasing on credit, it would have basically bankrupted Nazi Germany and trashed their foreign currency reserves preventing them from importing resources from the few friendly countries left.

Even if Hitler hadn't invaded the Soviet Union and America never entered the war, eventually Nazi Germany would have run out of credit and the self-cannibalism of the Nazi Economy would have seen the entire thing collapse on it.

Contrary to popular belief the German economy actually recovered rather quickly from the Depression relative to the rest of the world. The intentional debasement of the currency in the 20s was paying dividends by the early 30s. Hitler got a lot of praise for "fixing the economy" in the 30s in much the same way that Reagan did in the 80s. Lagging indicators yo.
 
Human beings are a pretty nasty lot, hopefully their religion teaches them not to be, but it doesn't always happen that way. So many, many Christians were guilty of some horrible acts, along with even more that pretended to ignored the acts.

What about now:
Rising Anti-Semitism in Europe: History Repeating Once Again
Posted: 07/20/2015 4:19 pm EDT Updated: 07/20/2015 4:59 pm EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abraham-h-foxman/rising-anti-semitism-in-e_b_7835610.html

Why the poor Jews?:(
 
I scrolled down to the comments. Big mistake.
 
Human beings are a pretty nasty lot, hopefully their religion teaches them not to be, but it doesn't always happen that way. So many, many Christians were guilty of some horrible acts, along with even more that pretended to ignored the acts.

What about now:

Why the poor Jews?:(

I've noticed that anti-semites (and racists in general) have been more out in the open this last year than they have been in the years before.
 
That'll happen whenever there's a refugee crisis. It's why a subset of people are worried about man-made global warming causing stress in certain high-poverty regions.
 
Back
Top Bottom