Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Positive Christianity (not so positive)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Positive Christianity (not so positive)

    Screw Godwin's Law. When you have an extreme historical example like Nazism, its daft to believe that history can't repeat itself.

    Been reading a bit about Positive Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity), which was the Nazi's attempt to slowly replace Christianity, bit by bit, with a Neo-Pagan state-sanctioned religion. Here are some quotes from the Wikipedia article that I found fascinating.

    Various historians credit the origins of "Positive Christianity" more to the political acumen and opportunism of the Nazi leadership. Leading Nazis like Himmler, Rosenberg, Bormann and Goebbels, backed by Hitler, were hostile to Christianity and ultimately planned to de-Christianize Germany.[8] However, Germany had been Christian for over a thousand years, and Hitler recognized the practical reality of the political significance of the Churches in Germany and determined that any moves against the churches must be made in stages. In the words of Paul Berben, "Positive Christianity" therefore came to be advocated as a "term that could be overlaid with any interpretation required, depending on the circumstances" and the party declared itself for religious freedom provided this liberty did not "endanger the State or clash with the views of the 'Germanic Race'".
    In opposition to this movement was the Confessing Church,

    By 1934, the Confessional Church had declared itself the legitimate Protestant Church of Germany. Despite his closeness to Hitler, Müller had failed to unite Protestantism behind the National Socialist Party. In 1935 the Nazis arrested 700 Confessing pastors. Müller resigned. To instigate a new effort at coordinating the Protestant churches, Hitler appointed another friend, Hans Kerrl to the position of Minister for Church Affairs. A relative moderate, Kerrl initially had some success in this regard, but amid continuing protests by the Confessing Church against Nazi policies, he accused churchmen of failing to appreciate the Nazi doctrine of "Race, blood and soil" and gave the following explanation of the Nazi conception of "Positive Christianity", telling a group of submissive clergy:[22]
    The Party stands on the basis of Positive Christianity, and positive Christianity is National Socialism... National Socialism is the doing of God's will... God's will reveals itself in German blood... Dr Zoellner and [Catholic Bishop of Münster] Count Galen have tried to make clear to me that Christianity consists in faith in Christ as the son of God. That makes me laugh... No, Christianity is not dependent upon the Apostle's Creed... True Christianity is represented by the party, and the German people are now called by the party and especially the Fuehrer to a real Christianity... the Fuehrer is the herald of a new revelation". — Hans Kerrl, Nazi Minister for Church Affairs, 1937
    Is it possible that something like this will happen again? Is it happening somewhere already?

  • #2
    It is, only with liberals instead of NAZIs.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #3
      That a repetition of the precise nature of Positive Christianity may occur, admittedly a bit ludicrous true.

      However, what is not ludicrous to expect, is the constant apparitions of different world views all claiming to sport the "Brand of the Teachings of the Christ". Ever since the Gnostics kickstarted the trend of hijacking the brand of the Church, it has been one group after another over the course of the centuries always attempting to claim to be or part of the Church. It is no different from some chump attempting to pass off in giving fine Real Esteli cigars, only to find out that the leaves themselves come from cheapened tobacco leaf (and I can tell rubbish leaves from good ones), utter bootlegs. The brand that IS Christendom, Church has been hit and miss in "protecting" it's brand so to speak.

      That it can happen again, oh yes, and in many many forms. The teachings of the Christ are ever so easily bootlegged in anything a person wants, and those Germans of decades past were no different. And anyone committed to the cause of the Christ and the Church, has to be able to distinguish him or herself after the teachings of the Christ, and be critical from whatever group "pops up" claiming to be "Christian". Or else we are going to keep getting outsiders having trouble making the distinction, (Much the same way that anyone who has zero experience with cigars, is going to be unable to tell a proper cigar from a bootlegged one).
      Last edited by Andius; 03-10-2014, 09:57 PM.
      Ladino, Guatemalan, Hispanic, and Latin, but foremostly, Christian.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
        Is it possible that something like this will happen again? Is it happening somewhere already?
        Observe China

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
          Is it possible that something like this will happen again? Is it happening somewhere already?
          Yes, It’s called Christian Dominionism. The nutters always try to mix religion (theirs) with politics. Once you let them get the upper hand you are on the path to civil war.
          “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
          “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
          “not all there” - you know who you are

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Andius View Post
            That a repetition of the precise nature of Positive Christianity may occur, admittedly a bit ludicrous true.
            There is nothing new under the sun. Since Constantine, one main strategy has been this: if you can't beat Christianity, sublimate it by making it official and thus put it under your influence. In addition, European monarchs have tried to assume divine right of rule. Hitler merely took the general approach to the extreme, and it is extremely naive to believe that it hasn't happened before or that it won't happen again.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              There is nothing new under the sun. Since Constantine, one main strategy has been this: if you can't beat Christianity, sublimate it by making it official and thus put it under your influence. In addition, European monarchs have tried to assume divine right of rule. Hitler merely took the general approach to the extreme, and it is extremely naive to believe that it hasn't happened before or that it won't happen again.
              I was referring to the particular of Positive Christianity, I don't seeing it happening any time soon (although admittedly soon being key word), but the general trend (as you adequately put with Constantine's meddling with Church matters, very good example), agreed. Precisely one of the reasons why I loathe when the Church as an organization gets a little too involved in matters of State (For example, in Russia, it ticks me off to no end how Patriarch Aleksey II was so obnoxiously compliant with Putin).
              Last edited by Andius; 03-12-2014, 01:09 AM.
              Ladino, Guatemalan, Hispanic, and Latin, but foremostly, Christian.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Andius View Post
                I was referring to the particular of Positive Christianity, I don't seeing it happening any time soon (although admittedly soon being key word), but the general trend (as you adequately put with Constantine's meddling with Church matters, very good example), agreed. Precisely one of the reasons why I loathe when the Church as an organization gets a little too involved in matters of State.
                What's scarier, I wonder? When the Church gets too involved in matters of State, or when the State gets too involved in matters of Church.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                  What's scarier, I wonder? When the Church gets too involved in matters of State, or when the State gets too involved in matters of Church.
                  Interesting ponder. None of them good as far as I am concerned.

                  Church gets too involved in matters of State, we become co-responsible of their SNAFUs, it's bad enough outsiders cling to a particular fetish of accusing the Church all sorts of wrongs inconsistent with it's own principles (Some of the Church's involvement in the Spanish and Portuguese conquest of the Americas come to mind, and some of their compliance of the unnecessary bloodshed that occurred... ). Too intimate of that relation only brings shame to the Church, and fails to hold up to Paul's exhortations to be known for our good actions.

                  State get involved in matters of the Church, and we allow non-Church members to influence in things that do not even merit their influence. Case in point, it bothers me to no end how much Putin's regime intrudes ever so much in matters of the Russian Orthodox Church (especially when hunting down anyone they view as a threat to their regime). Then again, it doesn't help that their leaders insist in maintaining such a close relationship with it.

                  I am not a fan of the State as an institution (slow, inefficient, destructive, etc.), but ignoring it as a whole is not a prudent thing either, especially when members of the Church run and acquire positions of office within the State. No such prohibition within Christ's teachings in the first place.
                  Last edited by Andius; 03-12-2014, 01:52 AM.
                  Ladino, Guatemalan, Hispanic, and Latin, but foremostly, Christian.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes, It’s called Christian Dominionism. The nutters always try to mix religion (theirs) with politics. Once you let them get the upper hand you are on the path to civil war.
                    I'd say the more American problem is less that politics becoming religion than private religion becoming political, and ruling public politics:

                    Originally posted by Jim
                    The transition from thinking of themselves as Christian, and indeed much holier than those horrid hateful reactionaries, Jesus and the Disciples, to thinking of themselves as anti Christian, took place after left wing power became centered in America. The American constitution unambiguously prohibits theocracy at the federal level. What America had after the Civil War was theocracy at the federal level, so it was necessary to kick the Theo out of their Cracy.

                    Kicking the Theo out of their Cracy was easily done, since they had long believed themselves holier than Jesus, but it was done late. The regnant left believed themselves holier than thou, rather than lefter than thou, all the way to the 1930s or 1940s, and did not allow too many Jews too close to the corridors of power until the 1950s.

                    It was in the anti slavery movement that the predecessors of today’s left began to distinctly depart from Christianity: For the New Testament takes a tolerant attitude towards slavery: It gently suggests that Christians free their own slaves, but does not require it, and clearly prohibits Christians from freeing other people’s slaves, though they are perhaps permitted to close their eyes to other people’s runaway slaves and look the other way. The civil war conspicuously and spectacularly exceeded not only what the New Testament requires, but also what it permits. Killing people in large numbers and breaking other people’s stuff in order to end slavery is clearly and violently unchristian. A Christian approach to the slavery problem would be to vigorously enforce the Old Testament rule “He that stealeth a man and selleth him, he shall be put to death”, and allow slavery to slowly wither away, as was successfully done in much of the world.

                    Killing a large part of an American generation and burning much of the South was holier than Jesus.

                    With the emancipation of women, they really had to ditch Christianity and started doing so, for while the New Testament is mildly disapproving of slavery, it endorses stern patriarchy in no uncertain terms, and thus, with women’s suffrage, we see the familiar modern left, the modern lefter than thou mingled with the older holier than Jesus.

                    The infamous “Society for the Suppression of Vice”, which is what we think of when use the term “Victorian” to mean stern disapproval of sex and the belief that women have no sexual nature, was a left wing movement, operating in England out of the same headquarters and operated by the same people as the anti slavery movement, the movement to get Calvinist bishops into the Church of England, and the movement to make the Thirty Nine Articles a mere formality with no real content.

                    Since women supposedly had no sexual nature, the repressive measures that the “Society for the Suppression of Vice” successfully imposed were anti male measures, strikingly similar to the measures imposed by modern feminists despite the supposedly very different rationale.

                    The “Society for the Suppression of Vice” theoretically believed in chastity for both men and women and said so frequently, stressing the “both”, so frequently as to suggest that people doubted it, or that they doubted it themselves, but they believed that to make women chaste was primarily a matter of preventing evil men from making poor innocent women do bad things.

                    Perhaps when they emphasized “both” they were having a dig at the right wing view that it was women, the uncontrollably lustful sex, that needed to be restrained for their own good, the good of the family, and the good of society, and not men, or they thought of it as a dig at the right, but the emphasis on “both” seemed guilty and defensive to me, that they were saying “We are not the hypocrites! You are!”

                    In fact it was the “Society for the Suppression of Vice” that were the hypocrites, for though theoretically opposed both men and women having sex, in practice they were closely associated with the various movements to rescue fallen women, which proposed to rescue fallen women by removing all the adverse social, legal, and economic consequences from women having sex outside marriage.

                    Thus, in practice the supposedly anti sex “Society for the Suppression of Vice” was, like modern supposedly pro sex feminists, opposed to beta males having sex and in favor of women having sex with alpha males outside marriage. Indeed we can trace this all the way back to Cromwell’s puritans desacralizing marriage and legalizing divorce. The modern supposedly pro sex feminist movement, who, despite supposedly being pro sex, are always inventing new forms of “rape”, has continuity of personnel and organization all the way back to Cromwell’s puritans.

                    Since women, unlike men, bring their bastards home, with disastrous consequences, and women are, according to the right of that time (the reactionaries of our time) the uncontrollably lustful sex, it makes perfect sense to control female sexuality, rather than male. The double standard rests on biology. There is nothing hypocritical about it, and the then right and the present day reaction have never been the slightest bit ashamed of the double standard. It was those proposing to both suppress vice and also protect women from the consequences of vice, that were hypocritical. And indeed are hypocritical, for the same hypocrisy stands today, when women are encouraged to get drunk with strangers, but should they wake up with a stranger and a terrible hangover, it is rape, the stranger is the rapist and the poor innocent woman the rape victim.

                    Similarly, the temperance movement had massively overlapping personnel and postal addresses with the female emancipation and female suffrage movements, and their personnel, organizations, and postal addresses were in part descended from the anti slavery movement.

                    Since Jesus and the disciples, and just about everyone in the New Testament, drank alcohol socially, at mealtimes and in moderation, the movement to prohibit alcohol was holier than Jesus, which is to say pharisaical.

                    Since Jesus and the disciples accepted the institution of slavery, discouraged slaves from running away, and prohibited freeing other people’s slaves, the movement to free the slaves was holier than Jesus, which is to say pharisaical.

                    Since Jesus and the disciples firmly endorsed and commanded stern patriarchy, the movement to emancipate women was holier than Jesus, which is to say pharisaical.

                    Thus the Victorian movement to ever greater holiness prefigured and became the movement to ever greater leftism, prefiguring today’s left singularity.

                    Tracing the English speaking left all the way back, we see continuity of personnel and ideology, the ideology slowly changing from Puritan Christianity to Unitarian Universalism to modern leftism, but changing slowly and continuously without any abrupt change, though over time every detail of the ideology changed, except for the war on Christmas, desecration of marriage, and the emancipation of women, which remained the whole time, even though sometimes justified by the argument that Christmas was too pagan, and at other times justified by the argument that Christmas was not pagan enough, and sometimes, strangely, both arguments simultaneously, while the desecration of marriage never got an explanation, for they never admitted that that was what they were doing, nor did the emancipation of women for as long as they thought themselves Christian, for Paul unambiguously tells the Church to socially enforce male authority over women.
                    Firstfloor, this is what you mean by Christian Dominionism, right?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Rodney Stark distinguishes between the Church of Power, which views Christian religion in terms of temporal benefits on this Earth, and the Church of Piety, which views it in terms of eternal benefits. Excessive entanglement between the state and the church has historically led to the Church of Power having the upper hand. Stark argues that it took the Counter-Reformation to wrest control of the Roman Catholic Church and have it returned to the Church of Piety, where it has remained to this day.

                      This blog post happens to explain the concept in a little more detail - the specific musings about Catholic theology are not relevant to my point here (I'm not even Catholic myself). http://robertgotcher.blogspot.com/20...-of-piety.html
                      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thanks for the link. Checking it out now.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
                          I'd say the more American problem is less that politics becoming religion than private religion becoming political, and ruling public politics:



                          Firstfloor, this is what you mean by Christian Dominionism, right?
                          The author fails lethally by pimping the virtues of freedumb before the article even starts.
                          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                            The author fails lethally by pimping the virtues of freedumb before the article even starts.
                            You should have read to the end:

                            All governments are in some sense theocratic, though the ideology may pretend to have no gods, or, like communism, actually have no gods. You can restrict theocracy to only apply at the local level, as the United States used to do before the War Between The States, or, like the Ottoman Caliphate, tolerate other religions as subject states within an empire, in which one religion exercises imperial domain over subject religions, like an emperor exercising imperial domain over subject Kings. The only way to not have theocracy is to have some form of anarchy.

                            If there is going to be a government, that government is going to control the schools, and openly or furtively control the churches, and make them teach a particular viewpoint. The question then is, what shall that viewpoint be?

                            If the official belief system bans too many heresies, as it does today, science and technology stagnates, because the scientific and technological way of thinking comes to be deemed hostile, subversive, and low status. Thus, for example, evidence is forbidden in Wikipedia. Only the voice of authority is deemed relevant. On the other hand, too much tolerance for hostile theocratic alien outside belief systems is likely to result in the official theocracy being infiltrated and overthrown by a more passionate, more self righteous, and more repressive belief system, as happened to theocratic Anglicanism.
                            I'm as much for harping on libertarian blindness as the next guy, but the ones who most effectively counter them and expound reactionary philosophy are...former libertarians. Reactionaries are merely libertarians who didn't stop thinking about political philosophy once they reached a point that was comfortable for them and their social circle. But then, that's the difference between truthful thinking and evolutionary thinking.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I did read the whole thing. The article is a diatribe against freedom, but for some reason the title complains that liberals are against freedom. It's like starting a racist article with "I'm not racist but..." He obviously doesn't believe in the virtues of freedom, and should not pretend that he does with a dishonest title.
                              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Electric Skeptic, Today, 10:28 AM
                              0 responses
                              15 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Electric Skeptic  
                              Started by Whateverman, Yesterday, 05:50 PM
                              10 responses
                              101 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Stoic
                              by Stoic
                               
                              Started by LiconaFan97, Yesterday, 05:19 PM
                              3 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Started by Kate22, Yesterday, 08:56 AM
                              26 responses
                              222 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 08:06 AM
                              3 responses
                              58 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Electric Skeptic  
                              Working...
                              X