Disgusting cowardice from UK police over 'Yid' chants

Post Reply New Topic

I suppose I will be deep fried in the pits of Hell.I hope I am tasty,may all beings benefit

I believe in reincarnation. I figure I screwed up in my past life, so I'm trying to do a better job this time 'round.

^^! think you are a better person than me. So I dedicate my merit to you.

Sure, Baptist theologians go to seminaries. My own pastor has said evangelicals are beginning to appreciate education. Still, many see experience as more important than doctrine, and that just doesn't rub me the right way.
And sure they have the right to believe what they want. But as I said, my faith doesn't damn other Christians to hell, and so we just would appreciate the same courtesy returned to us. And like I've already stated, they're bigotry makes them fair game for attack.

Bill, most of the Baptist theological seminaries have been in existence for many decades, and some of them for well over a century. It is the case that at one time the Evangelical sects didn't have educational facilities, but that was because this was the faith favored by those living in the backwoods and frontier, where there none of the trappings of civilization existed. But the frontier has been completely closed now since 1890.

It is also the case that the virtuous liberal northerners destroyed the South more thoroughly than they did Nazi Germany--except they didn't rebuild the south. As a result, the Southerners of my grandfather's generation and before couldn't attend school; they had to work to support their families. My grandfather had to quit school after the third grade to pick cotton on the family farm. This is what liberals do.

Again, insofar as Evangelicals think others who disagree with them are hell-bound, it's because they think they are right. It's natural to take the things seriously that we take seriously. For example, I think liberalism is dead wrong. But ask me if the Redskins or Cowboys are the best football team, and I couldn't care less. Evangelicals simply take their religion more seriously than do liberals.

Just because people inhabit backwoods areas is hardly a sound excuse to shun education. My own Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, upon being established in early - mid 19th century America, was founded by German immigrants on the Midwestern frontier who very quickly established a seminary to train their clergy. Oh, the seminary building itself was nothing more than a log cabin, but the point is, they saw education as a foremost necessity. From there, our seminary system grew. And while I'm aware that Baptists have had seminaries in America for a long, long time, it's the quality of the education that I call into question. And this grows out of the anti-intellectual traditions one finds present among evangelicals, even today.
As far as liberalism causing your grandfather from going to school - I'd chalk that up more to the south sticking to a conservative agrarian society, while rejecting industrialization. And when there were factories in the south, organized labor, which could have helped southern workers the way they had in the north, was more often than not rejected as being "radical," or "communistic" by not only owners and management, but also by the workers themselves. This goes back to the heart of conservatism, which has always feared change - even for the better.
And the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod liberal? Ask any member of my church that question, and you'll be laughed at in your face. Just because my church body doesn't fall into the fundamentalist of evangelical ranks hardly makes us a liberal modernist church body. Contrary to what evangelicals claim, not all mainline churches are theologically liberal. But just the same, we do not damn other churches to hell just because we don't have 100% agreement with them. As long as the Trinity, and Christ's dual nature are taught, then we accept them as legitimate. I could care less if evangelicals believe their way of belief and worship is the only way, in the end, it's just religious bigotry. And by the way, my church body does in fact have a southern membership - one member of my congregation is a supplanted Kentuckian who recalls the evangelicals from his old home as close minded and overbearing. There are Missouri Synod Lutherans in your neck of the woods, in Texas. Back after WWI, the Missouri Synod had taken a stand against the KKK, because they were threatening southern black Lutherans.
And yes, I am a liberal - I don't agree with my church body on every social issue, such as gay marriage, but I do stand with their hardline defense of Lutheran doctrine. Please don't mistake my political liberalism for my church body's stand.

Bill, who do you think you're talking to? Germans didn't move into an area until the Indians were gone and there was some infrastructure in place. Germans were yeoman farmers and small businessmen, and very good ones at that--not frontiersmen.

German education led to German politics. And we all know where that can lead.

As far as your position on your church's beliefs go, considering that Christianity is nothing but a body of specific beliefs, just what is left when you reject those beliefs?

The Germans who came to America were not fascistic. Many of them came because they had rejected the authoritarian political system of the land of their birth. As one writer put it, "What was Germany's loss was America's gain."
As for my alleged rejection of my church's beliefs - I don't reject any Lutheran theological positions; just social issues such as gay rights and gay marriage. In that sense, I'm very much reflecting the opinions commonly held in my part of the country, the Pacific Northwest. And make no mistake, my part of the country is of the history of mountain men, pioneers, cowboys, itinerant industrial (radical) labor, Native American resistance fighters, and desperadoes. And our old west history extended as far as the early 20th century. Frontier radicalism took hold here where conservatism elsewhere did, from which modern west coast liberalism was born out of.

Bill, no, Germans who came to America were not fascistic. Fascism was something unique to the experiences of WWI. If you want to understand what gave the world fascism, I can recommend a book called "Storms of Steel" by Ernst Junger. It describes the absolutely hellish experiences of trench warfare in WWI; it was so awful we can't even begin to imagine. Well, some of those soldiers actually enjoyed the trench experience. These were the first rank-and-file fascists.

As far as Hitler goes, as Lady Astor said, Hitler was born at Versailles. I think that is a bit of a stretch personally. Besides the experiences of trench warfare (Hitler made it through the entire war--a very rare feat), what shaped Hitler most was what occurred after the fighting was over, namely a blockade of Germany that led to the deaths of almost a million Germans due to starvation--again, AFTER the fighting was over.

Hitler made it his life's goal to ensure nothing like this could ever happen again. To accomplish this goal, Hitler wanted to unite the German people wherever they were found in Europe, and take over the vast expanses of Russia, not entirely for "lebensraum", but for the vast natural resources. Germans are probably the most capable people on earth. But they were packed into a tiny country with very limited natural resources. Russia has almost unlimited resources. This was in furtherance of the fascist goal of autarky, or economic independence.

The genius of the Anglo-Saxons was to avoid all forms of political radicalism save its dalliances with liberalism--at least until the old guard was totally discredited by their conduct of WWI.

Germans, on the other hand, have always been much more authoritarian, and that remains the case to this day. This is because, unlike the English, who fought their wars from afar with their navy, the Germans usually fought on their own soil. German exigencies were simply different from those of the Anglo-Saxons, and it made for a different culture. This is why both Marxism and Nazism flourished on German soil while they were able to make little headway in Britain.

As far as "social issues" versus theology goes, abortion, being a matter of life and death, is a theological issue. An example of social issues from the Catholic Church would be women going covered to mass, or whether to eat meat on Fridays. Abortion is in a completely different league than those.

You are also right on radicalism in Washington. It was settled by those of the Puritan culture, whose values most closely resembled those of the European continent, including their radicalism.

, do

When I said Germans coming to America were not "fascistic," I was speaking in terms of authoritarianism, not literal fascism.

Actually, German culture is much more authoritarian by virtue of supporting liberalism. What is meant by German authoritarianism is more government control over the lives of citizens. That certainly describes liberalism--does it not?

As for the Germans and English being of two different cultures - not originally, when they were once the same people fifteen centuries ago.

Yes, while undoubtedly the Anglo-Saxons made more than minor cultural contributions to the British dynamic, when we are talking fifteen hundred to two thousand years ago, that distinctive cultural flourish vanished long ago into the amalgam of British cultures.

In regard to frontier radicalism of the Northwest growing out of Puritanism - actually, religion was never a very strong element in the make up of my part of the country. Rather, you had rootless, footloose young men drifting into the Northwest who were disconnected by and large to their pasts, and looking forward to the thriving vice industry to spend their hard earned money on. Today, church attendance in Washington is the lowest of any state. My pastor, who hails from Iowa, said he actually found this fact refreshing - in other parts of the country, people go to church because they feel they have to, while here, those who go to church go because they actually want to.

I agree the religion isn't a very strong component in the makeup of your area, though I understand Oregon to have the lowest rates of church attendance. But religion long ago ceased to be an important part of Puritan culture. They went from quaking at the thought of the holy Trinity, to believing in one God at most, then to Political Correctness as I showed with my Schweitzer question. As far as footloose young men and such, that too is part of the "anything goes" liberal ethos. Is it not?
_________________