Hitler on the Origins of Religion:

[wynn]

As an adult, my religious views began to evolve due to exposure to people from other cultures and my life experiences. I became disenchanted with Christianity after having been appointed the duties of conducting bible study at my church. I accepted the job with honor and took my duties very seriously so I began to read and re-read the bible wholeheartedly. The more I read the more issue I took with it. As a result I denounced my faith because I felt if I had to cherry pick it, I should just not claim any of it. And dropped the label so as to avoid hypocrisy. Through learning about world religions in a college course I decided to convert to Islam.

Long story short, that didn't work out so well for me either.

But I attended Church as a Christian. I attended the mosque as a Muslim. Even now I still have the entire prayer memorized in Arabic. I creep my husband out from time to time reciting parts of it lol.


See above. This was not the situation at all. I was one of them. Fully accepted and embraced. I was even asked to be the American liason at the local Islamic Information center immediately after 911. It was a center set up for nonMuslims to be able to come and learn about Islam without being proselytized to. They felt that being a convert who did so out of pure will and not due to marriage, that I would be the best to mediate between Angry Americans and Islam.

I don't mean this as a personal offense to you - IMO, you never actually belonged, never actually were a Christian or a Muslim.
Apparently, at the time you first joined those religions formally, you didn't know much what they were about (given the "surprises" later).

Again our differing perspectives come into play here. It has been my observation, that those who oppose religion complain that religion is dogmatic and forceful. And that those who uphold religion say otherwise. But any individual who adheres to a religion can be oblivious to their status. For a long time I convinced myself that I fully believed the tenets of my faith that were being taught to me. When in reality I was ashamed to admit to myself that I only accepted things that felt instinctively wrong, to me, because I didn't want to be rejected by God or those who claimed to follow him and know more about the religion than me.

Then you weren't really religious. You were an impostor.

Seriously. I'm interested in the topic of conversion and deconversion.
I've read stories of people who deconverted, and one thing many of them have in common is that at the time of joining (and often then for years to come), they didn't really know what they were getting themselves into, what they were agreeing to.

They were infatuated with a religion, just like one person may be infatuated with another person.
And just like some people marry on the grounds of infatuation, so some people formally join a religion out of infatuation with said religion.
And just like infatuation doesn't make for a good relationship between humans, infatuation doesn't make for a good relationship with a religion.

Such an approach to religion/spirituality is sometimes related to phenomena called "spiritual materialism," "religious/spiritual addiction" or "spiritual bypassing:" the person wants to be religious/spiritual, they want to belong, they want a fancy personal life philosophy - and they want it now, regardless of how much they know or are able to do or resources they have.

I know some books on the topic:
Toxic faith
Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, The: Recognizing and Escaping Spiritual Manipulation and False Spiritual Authority Within the Church
Healing Spiritual Abuse and Religious Addiction

These are books by Christian authors, from a Christian perspective, and they are not against Christianity.

Denial is a weird coping mechanism. I know I am only one example. No two people are EXACTLY alike but I doubt I am really so unique that NO ONE else has deluded themselves. Victims of domestic abuse often cope with the abuse by deluding themselves that it is their own fault, that they somehow earned the abuse and that if they just improve, the abuse will stop.

That doesn't mean the same is going on for everyone within a religion.

The population within a religion is diverse, and we can observe some subgroups:

One percentage are those who are relatively consistent in their beliefs and practices, who are relatively happy and well-adjusted; their religion is related to their contentment.

On the other end is the percentage of the religious population who profess belief and membership, but who are relatively inconsistent in their beliefs and practices, who are unhappy, who complain a lot, who are prone to anxiety and anger; their religion is a chore for them.

Then there are those in the middle.

I agree that her mental activities, thought processes, put her into a position of potential exploitation. But it is a mental activity to accept religion. And I feel religion can help to create a mental environment that, if the holder of the religion is submissive by nature (I think i said weak minded before, this was a poor choice of words on my part), he/she could use the religion to justify not questioning religious authority.

Then such a person has not accepted the whole religion, and this incompleteness is the source or at least part of the problem.

If there exist happy and well-adjusted practitioners of a religion, this suggests that it is possible to practice a religion without detriment to self and others, and that the religion is not faulty.

In Christianity at least, the woman is supposed to submit to her own husband as the church is to submit to Christ. In Islam the wife is to always obey the husband or suffer the curses of the angels until she submits. He is also instructed to beat her if she is disobedient.

I am well familiar with these things.

If a person is not given to being submissive by nature. They would likely reject this religions immediately.

Not necessarily. A person who is not submissive by nature might focus on different aspects of the religion than a submissive one, and also possibly get a lot more out of the religion that way.

So you see, I am not blaming the religion. I am blaming the submissive nature of the one who holds the religion. And ones nature CAN change over time. Mine sure did.

And possibly the religions that you practiced had something to do with it.

I think I know which ones, but can you suggest a couple. I have been too busy over the past few years to study anything in regards to specific faiths. Ones that acknowledge ego would definitely pique my interests.

That's quite a bit of reading to do!

Some pointers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_(spirituality)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahamkara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atman_%28Hinduism%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dvaita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achintya_Bheda_Abheda

Well as long as we are ok with disagreeing with each other on things, and it seems we both agree that our perspectives are different and therefore our opinions as well, it would seem we can maintain a civilized and interesting discussion. However there is one concern, I think we have totally gotten away from what the OP was about. Perhaps we should move this to another thread? What do you think?

I guess start a new thread and have these posts moved there.

[seagypsy]

I guess start a new thread and have these posts moved there.

seagypsy= noob..... starting the new thread I understand. But how do you move posts over?

[Repo Man]

seagypsy= noob..... starting the new thread I understand. But how do you move posts over?

You would have to ask a moderator to do that for you. It's the sort of thing that should be done very sparingly, if at all. Which goes for all interaction with moderators as far as I'm concerned.

[seagypsy]

seagypsy= noob..... starting the new thread I understand. But how do you move posts over?

You would have to ask a moderator to do that for you. It's the sort of thing that should be done very sparingly, if at all. Which goes for all interaction with moderators as far as I'm concerned.

Ah ok. In any case, it seems kinda pointless now anyway. Wynn is on temporary ban and in all sincerity, the course of our mini discussion seems to have been run. I really can't think of anything to add to it at this point.

So...... Hitler was an atheist? .....(my pathetic attempt to get back on topic)

[UncleChrist]

So...... Hitler was an atheist?

It does not matter if Hitler was an athiest
The millions of people it took to fight for germany in WWII were clearly christian. The Catholic Church couldn’t praise Hitler and Nazism enough. The New Testament is filled with anti-Semitism. Christianity is founded upon Jew on Jew hatred, it was old vs. new.
Atheists do not have the numbers to be able to accomplish all the evils that believers try to attribute to them. Hitler was a Catholic, never denounced his catholic faith, and has never been excommunicated from the RCC.
the Church felt he was JUST and “avenging for God” in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.
Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings: “The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity.

http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm

[Jan Ardena]

seagypsy,

I agree, ignorance is a huge problem.

Religion and Ignorance are often seen as the same thing by many people.

Usually by ignorant people.

I don't see Religion as something that can be defined consistently with accuracy by anyone due to it's subjective nature.

Religion is a state of being, the ultimate, and original one being: to join with God.

So even if someone is not aware of what a Religious text says about a specific topic, there is no certainty that being made aware of it would automatically mean they would interpret it the same way as everyone else.

Maybe they're not really religious, but make an act of it because it's what's expected of them. Or maybe they are religious but not satisfied with the interpretation of that particular denomination.

You can even show some people what a text says and they will still not accept it.

That's not religion, it's simply sharing information or opinions.

So ignorance AND denial are a problem. but it is hard to say that it is even possible to be ignorant or in denial when it comes to religion. Because Religion is open to interpretation.

I think people attaxch the word ignorance to the whole of religion, because they think they want to, or, can abolish it. They believe religion was invented by primitives, and now it's out of date, and should make way for a different kind of humanity. Empire/Utiopian builders.


jan.

[Balerion]

Usually by ignorant people.

That's a baseless statement.

Religion is a state of being, the ultimate, and original one being: to join with God.

Nope. Religion is a set of beliefs.

I think people attaxch the word ignorance to the whole of religion, because they think they want to, or, can abolish it. They believe religion was invented by primitives, and now it's out of date, and should make way for a different kind of humanity. Empire/Utiopian builders.

No, people attach the word "ignorance" to religion because religion is ignorant. It is completely out of date, both as an explanation for how the world works and came to be, and as a moral guideline. It lost its relevance on either count centuries ago. And it isn't so much that it should make way, but rather that it already has. How many societies stone their children to death for cursing their parents? How many societies keep slaves? How many societies have made the practice of turning the other cheek and loving their neighbor official policy? What society could even function on the premise of not punishing unless they themselves are entirely without "sin," so to speak?

The societies that follow the ethics of the various holy texts are considered backwards and primitive, and with good reason.

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

Nope. Religion is a set of beliefs.

You practically demonstrated your particular ignorance below, and in other
threads.

No doubt some ''religions'' are a set of beliefs, but I'm not talking about ''various religions''. I'm talking about 'religion', what it actually means, and how our life is personally affected by it. Everyone forms a set, or sets, of belief during their lifetime, no matter how simple and uncomplicated it may be. The religion is how we live our life, not what we think of it.

No, people attach the word "ignorance" to religion because religion is ignorant. It is completely out of date, both as an explanation for how the world works and came to be, and as a moral guideline.

Obviously, that's your opinion (although I don't you actually think that), but there are other opinions out there as well.

It lost its relevance on either count centuries ago.

Can you elaborate on this?

And it isn't so much that it should make way, but rather that it already has.

This is where I doubt your understanding of religion.
All that as happened is one religious system has replaced another. And on this I agree with you about the out of date thing, but only on religious institutions, not the root of religion, God.

How many societies stone their children to death for cursing their parents? How many societies keep slaves? How many societies have made the practice of turning the other cheek and loving their neighbor official policy? What society could even function on the premise of not punishing unless they themselves are entirely without "sin," so to speak?

That's not religion.
How many women, men, children, are raped, bombed, tortured, starved, starving, displaced, murdered, beat up, abducted, treated unfairly, and all the other stuff, every single day, most probably every moment. How many people died as a result of abolishing state religion in communist countries?

My point is, religion pertains to each and every individual, not through social organisations. So when someone acts in a certain way, it is because of their core beliefs, unless they have been forced into that situation.

Having no religion is like removing the high frequencies from audio. Not a good idea.

The societies that follow the ethics of the various holy texts are considered backwards and primitive, and with good reason.

And the societies that don't are harsh and uncaring.
There has to be some form of middle ground.

jan.

[Balerion]

You practically demonstrated your particular ignorance below, and in other
threads.

I trust you'll substantiate this claim in this post.

No doubt some ''religions'' are a set of beliefs, but I'm not talking about ''various religions''. I'm talking about 'religion', what it actually means, and how our life is personally affected by it. Everyone forms a set, or sets, of belief during their lifetime, no matter how simple and uncomplicated it may be. The religion is how we live our life, not what we think of it.

No, "religion" is a set of beliefs. That's what it means. It's not that some religions are a set of beliefs, all religions are a set of beliefs.

The practice of religion is the employment of those beliefs in your everyday life. You should be aware of these distinctions if you plan on having these discussions (especially if you plan on accusing others of ignorance in the process).

Obviously, that's your opinion (although I don't you actually think that), but there are other opinions out there as well.

Would you care to elaborate on the bold part? I'm interested to know if there's anything I've said that would give you the impression that I am being disingenuous in my previous comment, or if this is just your attempt to distract from the fact that you've been reduced to a retort so limp as "Well that's your opinion."

Can you elaborate on this?

I believe I already did. Our collective morality in the west has long-since moved on from most Biblical injunction, and in fact the geocentric model probably predates Genesis, so on that count the Bible has been out of date from its inception.

This is where I doubt your understanding of religion.
All that as happened is one religious system has replaced another. And on this I agree with you about the out of date thing, but only on religious institutions, not the root of religion, God.

That you call modern western society a religion in and of itself only demonstrates your ignorance of religion, not mine.

The "root of religion" is primitive man. All the evidence points to this, and it's pretty clear that the very concept of goodhood is itself a construct of the human imagination. Your assertion that "God" is the root of religion is based on nothing--literally, nothing--other than your desire for it to be true. It's wish-thinking.

That's not religion.

Of course it is. These are mandates found in the largest religion in the world. Who do you think you're talking to, Jan?

How many women, men, children, are raped, bombed, tortured, starved, starving, displaced, murdered, beat up, abducted, treated unfairly, and all the other stuff, every single day, most probably every moment.

Am I supposed to take this question seriously?

Leaving aside just how much of the things you mention are done by people in the name of religion, can you really not see the difference? Where is the injunction for those acts in western society? Where is the divine warrant?

How many people died as a result of abolishing state religion in communist countries?

Nowhere near as many as have died in the name of religion or because of ignorance promoted by it.

[qote]My point is, religion pertains to each and every individual, not through social organisations. So when someone acts in a certain way, it is because of their core beliefs, unless they have been forced into that situation.[/quote]

I don't understand that at all. Religion pertains to each and every individual? I'm sorry, you're going to have to try that again. Strive for clarity.

Having no religion is like removing the high frequencies from audio. Not a good idea.

Except in the west, you mean? Where a group of secular humanists wrote a secular document guaranteeing equality for everyone?

You must substantiate this claim. It's not enough to simply say something vague.

And the societies that don't are harsh and uncaring.
There has to be some form of middle ground.

jan.

Again, show me what you mean. What societies are harsh and uncaring? What is so harsh and uncaring about them?

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

No, "religion" is a set of beliefs. That's what it means. It's not that some religions are a set of beliefs, all religions are a set of beliefs.

''Religion'' means - to bind, or join, again, very similar to yoga. The thing is, this is very evident in the basis of most religious systems which base their teachings close to scriptoral injuctions. It's obviously the meaning of religion.

Untill recently (historically) there was no question of whether or not God existed, and there still isn't. Either you believe or you don't. If you believe, then your religion/worldview/lifestyle will reflect that, regardless of institutes.
IOW, how you live your life is a reflection of you.

The practice of religion is the employment of those beliefs in your everyday life.

The employment of any belief is the employment of ones own religiousity, as it takes disipline, and conviction to meet ones goals.

You should be aware of these distinctions if you plan on having these discussions (especially if you plan on accusing others of ignorance in the process).

The thing is, if you're ignorant, you're not going to be any wiser.

What you want is for me to agree with you, but that can't happen as yet because you fall short of it's meaning, choosing to side with folk who are anti-religion.

Would you care to elaborate on the bold part? I'm interested to know if there's anything I've said that would give you the impression that I am being disingenuous in my previous comment, or if this is just your attempt to distract from the fact that you've been reduced to a retort so limp as "Well that's your opinion."

I don't think you understand religion (outside of institutes) to genuinely mean that. I myself am not a fan of institutes, and do criticise them, but I also understand there is a root religion. The origin of such pursuits.

I believe I already did. Our collective morality in the west has long-since moved on from most Biblical injunction, and in fact the geocentric model probably predates Genesis, so on that count the Bible has been out of date from its inception.

That's state religion. I believe one of the monarchs made it so he could get divorced, or something, by adding/subtracting something from the bible (ignore it if I'm wrong). That's not the religion I'm talking about. That is changing something to suit oneself.
Real religion is about going back to God, nothing more. .

That you call modern western society a religion in and of itself only demonstrates your ignorance of religion, not mine.

Anyone or organisation with uses strict disipline, rules and regulations, with an aim, I regard as religious. Because that's what religion is. ''Belief'' is like buying a ticket for a concert, meaning one is qualified to get in, nothing more.

The "root of religion" is primitive man.

No it's not. One only has to read some scriptures to know you're talking
nonsense.

All the evidence points to this,

Oh yeah! Scientists are all over this like flies round discarded pooh i bet!

...and it's pretty clear that the very concept of goodhood is itself a construct of the human imagination. Your assertion that "God" is the root of religion is based on nothing--literally, nothing--other than your desire for it to be true. It's wish-thinking.

Really?
Interesting.

Of course it is. These are mandates found in the largest religion in the world. Who do you think you're talking to, Jan?

That's not ''religion''. It may be expressed through certain cultures, who indulge in these types of barbarities, or even worse, then brought into the religious system. But it does not represent religion. A good example is the witchcraft thing going on down in Africa.

I'm talking to someone over the internet, someone no more or less important than anyone else I talk to in this manner.

Why? Who do you think you are?

Leaving aside just how much of the things you mention are done by people in the name of religion, can you really not see the difference? Where is the injunction for those acts in western society? Where is the divine warrant?

This is why I can't take you seriously. All you're interested in is abolishing religion (you don't even know what it is), to the point where you will blame everything bad that happens, on ''religion''. Seriously idiotic.

Nowhere near as many as have died in the name of religion or because of ignorance promoted by it.

Links please?

[qote]My point is, religion pertains to each and every individual, not through social organisations. So when someone acts in a certain way, it is because of their core beliefs, unless they have been forced into that situation.[/quote]

I don't understand that at all. Religion pertains to each and every individual? I'm sorry, you're going to have to try that again. Strive for clarity.

This is exactly my point. You DON'T understand it.

Except in the west, you mean? Where a group of secular humanists wrote a secular document guaranteeing equality for everyone?

Well they have to sell it, don't they?

You must substantiate this claim. It's not enough to simply say something vague.

When you take your own advise, I'll follow.

Again, show me what you mean. What societies are harsh and uncaring? What is so harsh and uncaring about them?

Western societies are becoming more and more harsh, as it becomes more godless.

jan.

[Balerion]

''Religion'' means - to bind, or join, again, very similar to yoga. The thing is, this is very evident in the basis of most religious systems which base their teachings close to scriptoral injuctions. It's obviously the meaning of religion.

No, it does not mean "to bind or join." The word itself comes at least at some point from the Latin relego which means "to gather again." This is why the idea of a personal religion is absurd; one can't gather alone.

Untill recently (historically) there was no question of whether or not God existed, and there still isn't.

That's a nonsensical statement. Is this a typo?

Anyway, there have always been people who question the existence of their deit(-ies)y. Likewise, there have always been atheists.

Either you believe or you don't. If you believe, then your religion/worldview/lifestyle will reflect that, regardless of institutes.
IOW, how you live your life is a reflection of you.

Again, I'm having trouble parsing the meaning of this. Are you arguing that religious institutions don't influence people? If so, that's patently false. Go visit parts of Afghanistan where the burka is mandatory, or places in the southern US where "Hell Houses" have become common tools meant to indoctrinate children to the wages of sin. Your assertion contradicts reality.

The employment of any belief is the employment of ones own religiousity, as it takes disipline, and conviction to meet ones goals.

You apparently think you're disagreeing with me here, but you're not. Religiosity is "the quality of being religious." Therefore the act of following religious mandates is not religion in and of itself, but an expression of one's religious beliefs.

The thing is, if you're ignorant, you're not going to be any wiser.

That makes no sense.

What you want is for me to agree with you, but that can't happen as yet because you fall short of it's meaning, choosing to side with folk who are anti-religion.

I don't need you to agree with me, I need you to stop making up your own definitions for words and stop inventing your own facts. If you could have an honest discussion, then we could all walk away satisfied afterwards.

And I am anti-religion. The difference between your position and mine is the fact that I can support my argument.

I don't think you understand religion (outside of institutes) to genuinely mean that. I myself am not a fan of institutes, and do criticise them, but I also understand there is a root religion. The origin of such pursuits.

Religion means institutes. We've already been over this. Religion is not an individualistic endeavor. Remember? "To gather again?"

As to this "root religion," what is it? Let's see the evidence.

That's state religion. I believe one of the monarchs made it so he could get divorced, or something, by adding/subtracting something from the bible (ignore it if I'm wrong). That's not the religion I'm talking about. That is changing something to suit oneself.
Real religion is about going back to God, nothing more. .

But then you're acting no differently from these "monarchs" who allegedly changed the bible to their ends. You seek a different "truth," and so you dismiss scripture where you see fit. That's the same thing.

You can have faith without religion, and that's what you apparently have. But it's not religion. Religion is the institution, the agreement upon tenets, the gathering of the pious. That's not what you have.

Anyone or organisation with uses strict disipline, rules and regulations, with an aim, I regard as religious. Because that's what religion is. ''Belief'' is like buying a ticket for a concert, meaning one is qualified to get in, nothing more.

Again, you require an incorrect usage of a word to make your point. Rules and regulations alone do not make a religion.

No it's not. One only has to read some scriptures to know you're talking
nonsense.

If one were taking that scripture at face value, sure. But all one has to do is research said scripture to know that it's fiction, that it derives from an earlier source and is either a knowing or unwitting misappropriation of some other mythology. The scriptures do not stand the historical test, in other words.

It's obvious to anyone who bothers to look that religion and its gods are human inventions.

Oh yeah! Scientists are all over this like flies round discarded pooh i bet!

Something about the ignorant not being any wiser...

Really?
Interesting.

Hey, here's your opportunity to dispute the claims. If the best response you can give is a roll of the eyes, I'd consider this matter closed.

That's not ''religion''. It may be expressed through certain cultures, who indulge in these types of barbarities, or even worse, then brought into the religious system. But it does not represent religion. A good example is the witchcraft thing going on down in Africa.

Of course it represents religion. You can't simply ignore the unflattering examples of something.

I'm talking to someone over the internet, someone no more or less important than anyone else I talk to in this manner.

Why? Who do you think you are?

I wrote that as a means to convey my incredulity at such a bold lie.

This is why I can't take you seriously. All you're interested in is abolishing religion (you don't even know what it is), to the point where you will blame everything bad that happens, on ''religion''. Seriously idiotic.

I suggest you read my post again, because I did nothing of the sort. Bad things happen independently of religion all the time. When did I say otherwise?

And the reason you've chosen not to take me seriously is because I represent a truth that frightens you. You don't like the idea of an existence without a god-figure, and so you reject any arguments against such an idea out of hand. Again, it's wish-thinking that keeps you in your position, nothing more. You have no evidence to support your claims, and you know this because you keep those claims as vague as possible and refuse to even attempt to support them.

My point is, religion pertains to each and every individual, not through social organisations. So when someone acts in a certain way, it is because of their core beliefs, unless they have been forced into that situation.

Saying something wrong twice doesn't make it right the second time.

This is exactly my point. You DON'T understand it.

No, what I'm having trouble with is your atrocious sentence structure and loose grip on the English language.

Well they have to sell it, don't they?

Sell what?

When you take your own advise, I'll follow.

Saying "I'm rubber, you're glue" has never been an effective argument technique. I suggest trying again.

Western societies are becoming more and more harsh, as it becomes more godless.

Again, what does this mean? Harsh how? Which societies? Do you even know what you're saying, or is this all for effect?