Is there a correlation between religious fundamentalism and holocaust denying?

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Why?

---

Because they need to finish the job.

quote:

---

Because most Biblical Christian fundamentalists are aware of the prophecies pertaining to Israel being the messianic fulfillment of the coming 2nd advent of Jesus who will rule the world from Jerusalem.

---

Right...meaning that all of the Jews are to be cast into hell.Let's not pretend that Christian fundamentalists are supportive of Israel because they like Jews.No, they're supportive of Israel because they need the Jews to die during Armageddon.I'll have to agree with the above: It isn't so much fundamentalism being connected to denial. It's anti-Semitism that can so often lead to both fundamentalism and denial.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

EighteenDelta writes:

quote:

---

Can we stop using the term 'anti-semite'?

---

As soon as you can get the world-wide population of English speakers to come up with another term, yeah. It's about 120 years old, so you'll have your work cut out for you.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Let's not pretend that Christian fundamentalists are supportive of Israel because they like Jews. No, they're supportive of Israel because they need the Jews to die during Armageddon.

---

​

I don't like to categorize people as fundamentalists, but I don't think I have ever got that feeling from any Christian about the Jews.

---

You need to start paying attention more, then. Just listen to Robertson go on about it and the collected works of Falwell. In 2006, Robertson condemned Israel's cease-fire with Hezbollah, quoting Isaiah: "We were with child. We writhed in pain, but we gave birth to wind."And if you can stomach it, read the "Left Behind," series...Jewish characters in the books exist for one of two reasons: Convert or die...they're the "red shirts" of the series.It's called "dominionism" (though it has its tendrils in "dispensationalism" and "Christian Zionism"). 144,000 Jews will convert to Christianity and be saved while all the rest will die and be cast into hell.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Taz writes:

quote:

---

-Pie is better than cake

---

But cheesecake is better than pie.

quote:

---

-Raymon Carver

---

First: It's "Raymond Carver."Second: Who?I had to look him up: Short stories and poetry.Nobody reads that.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

riVeRraT writes:

quote:

---

First off, I've never heard of the expression holocaust denier. wtf is that?

---

Um, you do know that one of the main defenses of those before the Nuremberg trials was to deny that there was any Holocaust. Oh, there were concentration camps, yes, but we never killed any Jews deliberately, no ovens, no Zyklon-B, no "Final Solution."The denial of the Holocaust is as old as the Holocaust.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

Cheesecake is pie. Don't you watch "Good Eats"?

---

Yes, I do. In fact, the fried turkey episode just finished.Cheesecake is custard. From the episode:

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

molbiogirl writes:

quote:

---

Even if you add everybody else together, the Jewish folks wiped out in the camps still got them beat

---

My understanding is that about 11 million people died in the Holocaust, of which about 6 million were Jews.Nearly 11 million Soviet Soldiers died in the war along with nearly another 12 million civilians and another 1 million Jews from the death camps, for just under one-third of all deaths in the war. About 13% of the entire population of the Soviet Union died from WWII. The only countries with higher proportional death rates were Poland and Lithuania.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

The mere fact that people devote countless hours trying to prove the non-existence of "Sky Fairies" is extremely telling of their disposition.

---

Oh, that's just precious.You shove your religion in another person's face and somehow it's their neurosis for responding to it.Imagine how much time they would spend "trying to prove the non-existence of 'Sky Fairies'" if you would simply stop trying to force their attentions onto them.

quote:

---

There must be something disturbingly gratifying for an atheist to try and bash someone's time honored beliefs for no apparent reason.

---

Boy...talk about projection.Do you really think atheists sit around all day and obsess about the non-existence of god?Tell ya what, NJ: Spend a year simply not talking about god and see how many atheists bring it up to you. It doesn't count if somebody else brings up the subject and they respond. It must be a completely original statement from them.

quote:

---

Perhaps they are trying to persuade themselves more than the other person.

---

Yeah, now I know you're projecting.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Taz writes:

quote:

---

For example, people might not recognize "blitzkrieg", but they should at least heard of the Phony War. They might not recognize "luftwaffe" but they should have heard somewhere about the maginot line.

---

Personally, I'd say the exact opposite for both of those things. It's more likely they've heard of "blitzkrieg" but not "Phony War." It's more likely they've heard of "Luftwaffe" but not "The Maginot Line.""Blitzkrieg" is still used in everyday speech. There's a videogame about the Luftwaffe.

crashfrog responds to Taz:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Still being dumbfounded by this stranger's question, I said "fate".

---

​

Well, it's actually "hubris"

---

No, Oedipus Rex is about fate, not hubris. The classic tragic flaw of Greek drama is hubris, and Oedipus does have a moment of hubris when he kills his father, but the fundamental question has to do with fate.King Laius and Queen Jocasta of Thebes learn that she will bear a son that will kill his father. Appalled, she tells a servant to kill the child but he is unable to do so. Instead, he leaves it on the mountain to die of exposure. However, a shepherd finds the child and takes him to be raised by King Polybus and Queen Merope of Corinth.Oedipus then learns of the prophecy and its extension: Not only will he kill his father, but also he will marry his mother. Not wanting to kill the man he thinks is his father or marry the woman he thinks is his mother, he runs away. Along the road, he runs across another man, they get into a fight, and Oedipus kills him. He then comes across the Sphinx that is terrorizing Thebes, solves the riddle, and as a reward, is given the hand of the queen in marriage. Of course, we all know that the man he killed was his father and the woman he married was his mother.So, Oedipus had a moment of hubris in the killing of Laius as their dispute was merely over who had the right of way on the road. However, the plot hinges around the prophecy hanging over Oedipus' head and the irony of the story is embedded in all the work everyone does to try and escape it only to have those very actions cause it.After all, the play takes place long after the events described happened. Oedipus has been king for years and has many children with Jocasta. A plague has descended upon Thebes and seems to be because somebody murdered Laius. Oedipus makes it his mission to find out who did it and eventually learns that it was he who did it all those years ago. Jocasta commits suicide and Oedipus blinds himself. This isn't an issue of hubris. This is an issue of fate.This isn't to say that Oedipus was destined to do so. When he learned of the prophecy, he didn't have to run away. He chose to do so instead of sticking around and being vigilant in refusing to kill his father or marry his mother (at least the people he thought were such). He didn't have to kill Laius. He chose to do so rather than refusing to kill anyone. He didn't have to marry Jocasta. He chose to do so rather than refuse to marry anyone.The tragic flaw of Oedipus is not hubris but rather his inability to take clear information and act upon it in a rational way. Instead, he panics and thinks he has left everything behind him.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, Oedipus Rex is about fate, not hubris.

---

​

Wow. Are we talking about the same situation?

---

Yeah...you know all that plot description I put in? It's pretty clear what I was talking about.

quote:

---

You know, the one where a man, prophesied that he would murder his father and marry his mother, thinks himself able to suborn the gods who defined his destiny and strikes out on his own, only to enact, in his pride, the very prophecy that he sought to avoid?

---

No, that's not hubris. Hubris is not pride in and of itself. It's the gloating and shaming of one you have conquered. That's why I pointed out, specifically, that Oedipus does have a moment of hubris: His murder of Laius is over something trivial: Who has right of way on a road. But that isn't the point behind the play, Oedipus, the King, nor is it the big point behind the entire story of Oedipus.Fate in Greek drama and mythology wasn't some overbearing force, making you destined to take action despite anything you could do. Everything that Oedipus does is done with free will. Each choice he makes is made with clear understanding of what the prophecy is.Again, Oedipus did not have to marry Jocasta. Knowing that the prophecy was that he would marry his mother, why didn't he simply decide not to marry anybody? That'd defy the prophecy right there. The problem was not one of pride but one of judgement.Remember, Oedipus goes to the Oracle seeking an answer to a simple question: Are Polybus and Merope his parents? The answer he gets is that he will murder his father and marry his mother. Oedipus thinks the Oracle has ignored his question but in reality, he got the answer to his question: No, they're not. By any standard of rationality, if Oedipus truly thought they were his parents, he would never kill Polybus and marry Merope. Instead, his real parents are out there in the world somewhere and if he kills anybody or marries anybody, those people just might be his parents.But Oedipus doesn't see this. His flaw is not pride but judgement. Rather than seeing that this means that if he is to avoid the prophecy, he must become an ascetic and pacifist, he tries to have his cake and eat it, too: He can still kill people and still marry people so long as they aren't the people he thinks are his parents. It never occurs to him that those might not be his parents, even though that is precisely why he went to the Oracle in the first place: Because he had doubt that they were.

quote:

---

How is that not hubris to you?

---

Because that isn't the definition of hubris. Do not confuse the modern, English use of the word with the Ancient Greek, dramatic use.Oedipus did not seek to defy the prophecy in order to achieve glory. That's what hubris is: The puffing up of oneself by shaming others. Oedipus has his moments of pride (he goes on about how he was the one who defeated the Sphinx), but that's not what causes his downfall. He didn't run away from Corinth out of pride but out of fear. While he did kill Laius out of pride (and as I said, that is a moment of hubris), he doesn't marry Jocasta out of pride but out of hope that this will show the prophecy to be false.

quote:

---

but the story of Oedipus is, like, the textbook example of hubris in Greek drama.

---

No, Oedipus is the textbook example of irony. Nowadays, "ironic" is simply a euphemism for "snarkily self-aware," but the true definition of irony is the attempt to stand athwart fate and yet those very actions are the ones that cause said fate to happen.Hubris is the attempt to inflate one's self-importance by the shaming of others. The story of Oedipus isn't about that, even though there is a moment of hubris in it.

quote:

---

From wiki

---

Ahem. Did you bother to read that article before you posted? That was the very second sentence, crash.Where do we find Oedipus taking pride in his attempt to avoid the prophecy?

quote:

---

I don't want to turn this into a quibble about a fairly minor point, but I grew up with the story of Oedipus as a bedtime story

---

Um, crash? I'm Greek. I had read both the Iliad and the Odyssey by the time I made it to third grade.

quote:

---

I''m from a theatre family

---

Do I need to remind you that I'm an actor, crash? That picture in the profile is of me playing Adam playing Jess playing Hamlet from The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged) (it gets complicated).

quote:

---

what can I say - and Oedipus Rex has always been told as a story of hubris.

---

I know what I can say: You've been hoodwinked.Oedipus, the King is a story of irony and fate.

quote:

---

It's not just fate.

---

Well, of course it isn't "just" fate. It wouldn't be much of a story if it were. But just because there are moments of hubris within the story doesn't mean the story is about hubris or that hubris is a dominant player.Romeo and Juliet has a suicide in it, but it isn't a play about suicide. It wouldn't be a tragedy if the characters lived and the use of suicide as the method of their death is certainly a dramatic way of achieving the tragic result, but suicide is not the central thesis of the play. It is a story of love that cannot survive.

quote:

---

It's about Oedipus thinking he can change his fate, that he is beyond fate, and, in his pride and arrogance, bringing about the very fate he sought to avoid.

---

Oh, where to begin...that statement isn't even wrong."Beyond" fate? Where to begin? Oedipus certainly doesn't think he is beyond fate. Prophecy isn't destiny and the Greeks had no problem with working against it. That's the entire point behind Oedipus: The prophecy could have been thwarted if everybody had simply made different choices. If Jocasta had kept the child, he wouldn't have grown up to kill Laius as she could have raised him to respect his father. If she had decided to kill the child herself, he wouldn't have grown up to kill Laius. If the servant had gone through with it, Oedipus wouldn't have survived. If Polybus and Merope had simply been honest with Oedipus, he never would have gone to the Oracle and become panic-stricken about what he would do. If Oedipus had simply taken the prophecy as a warning, he could have stayed and never killed or married anybody. He didn't have to run away. He didn't have to kill Laius. He didn't have to marry Jocasta.Nobody in the entire story was ever forced to do anything. Everything was done through free will. That's why the story of Oedipus is about irony and the question of fate vs. free will, not hubris: There is a prophecy and the freely chosen actions of everybody involved trying to avoid those results have the exact opposite effect.

quote:

---

How is that not hubris?

---

Because hubris about about shaming another to make yourself seem more important.Where did Oedipus declare himself to be "beyond fate," as you put it?Remember: Oedipus sends Creon to the Oracle at Delphi, the very same one he fled all those years ago, to find out what to do about the plague besetting Thebes. He then summons Tiresias, the seer, for more help. If Oedipus truly thought that he was "beyond fate," why would he seek out those who deal in it?Again, this isn't to say that there are no moments of hubris to be found.It's that the story of Oedipus isn't about hubris. It's about irony and fate.Compare Oedipus to Jason. Jason marries Glauke in order to claim higher position and shames Medea which leads her to poison Glauke and murder his children. Because he broke his vow to be true to Medea, he is castigated and dies when the Argo falls on him. That's hubris. Medea is filled with hubris, too, in that she humiliates her family (killing her own brother!) so that she can latch herself onto Jason's star...only to be dropped when a better political bride comes along. The entire story is about people lording it over others and having all that they thought they could achieve being taken away because of that insistence upon shame.Where is the shaming act of Oedipus? It's there when he kills Laius...not out of respect to the prophecy but because he got himself into a snit over who had right of way on a road.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

Oedipus is the story of a man who thinks himself above the power of fate, beyond fate, and in his pride and arrogance causes the very outcome he thought he had the power to avoid.

​

That's hubris.

---

No, that's irony.And no, Oedipus did not think of himself as "above the power of fate, beyond fate." His downfall has nothing to do with pride or arroagance.

quote:

---

How can that not be hubris?

---

Because the definition of hubris is not simply pride. It is the shaming of others to inflate yourself. The story of Oedipus and his downfall has nothing to do with him shaming others (though he does do so at one point). It has to do with irony and the question of fate vs. free will.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

No, irony is when outcomes differ from what is expected, like the way it's ironic that a guy who's avatar is a production photo of himself performing on the stage doesn't recognize hubris in one of its famous textbook examples, yet presumes to lecture others about Greek drama.

---

And yet, you haven't managed to explain why your own source contradicts you.

quote:

---

It has everything to do with Oedipus's desire to transcend his fate

---

That doesn't make it hubris. Hubris requires the shaming of another in order to increase oneself. Seeking to avoid fate is not an act of shaming and therefore is not hubris.

quote:

---

to act outside of his appointed role

---

That doesn't make it hubris. Hubris requires the shaming of another in order to increase oneself. Seeking to avoid catastrophe is not an act of hubris.

quote:

---

to reject his destiny as determined for him, by the Fates.

---

That doesn't make it hubris. Hubris requires the shaming of another in order to increase oneself. Trying to change one's destiny is not an act of hubris.

quote:

---

That's why Oedipus Rex is a central example of hubris in every drama course.

---

Incorrect. Oedipus, the King is the central example of irony. My Script Analysis text, Masterpieces of the Drama, never mentions hubris in discussing Oedipus, the King but rather focuses on irony: But let's not stop there...my Intro to Theatre text, Stages of Drama, has this to say about Oedipus, the King: Again, I'm not saying that Oedipus, the King has no connection to pride. I'm saying that pride and hubris (they are not the same thing) are not the central points of the play. It's irony.The Greek drama that is the central example of hubris is Antigone, the third play in the Theban cycle. Oedipus has left the rule of Thebes to his two sons, intending for them to take turns in ruling the city. However, Eteocles banishes Polynices who gathers an army to attack the city and the two of them kill each other. The new ruler, Creon, declares that because Polynices attacked Thebes, he will not be allowed to be buried.That's the the first moment of hubris. Creon seeks to shame Polynices.Antigone, Polynices's brother, seeks to bury his body and when Creon finds out, he has her brought before him and sentences her to death. It turns out, though, that the populace think Antigone did the right thing and her fiance, Haemon, tries to reason with Creon, who humiliates him, essentially saying he's pussy-whipped. When Haemon and Creon's own son say that by killing Antigone, there will be yet another death, Creon becomes enraged and says that Antigone will be left to starve.Once again, more hubris. Creon seeks to belittle Haemon.Tiresias shows up and tells Creon that he's making a mistake. Creon finally sees the light and goes to free Antigone, but she has already committed suicide by hanging (like her mother, Jocasta) and Haemon, upon seeing his dead fiancee, kills himself.Contrast the actions of Creon to Oedipus: Creon knew exactly what he was doing at every moment, and yet he went ahead with it in order to cast down those at whom he was angry. Oedipus, on the other hand, had no idea that Laius was his father and Jocasta was his mother.And no, this isn't really on topic...unless you're going to try and claim that I'm a "hubris denier."Edited by Rrhain, : Added reference material.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Um, crash? I'm Greek. I had read both the Iliad and the Odyssey by the time I made it to third grade.

---

​

Ah, a late bloomer, then.

---

(*chuckle*)Did your copy have the original Greek on the facing page?

quote:

---

Maybe that's why it didn't occur to you that the concept of "hubris" might be a little more complex than simply "pride goeth before a fall"

---

Huh? Haven't you been paying attention, crash? "Pride goeth before a fall" [I][B]IS NOT HUBRIS[/i][/b] except in the minds of modern speakers of English who have confused the Ancient Greek understanding of it and reduced it to the simple sin of pride. Having pride in your accomplishments was no sin to the Greeks. It was the dishonor of humiliating those you have conquered that was the problem.

quote:

---

the modern usage and its usage in Greek drama aren't as different as you make them out to be, if you understand the term in the context of ancient Greek views about the nature of fate and the place of a person in the world.

---

Huh? Those two contexts show that the modern usage and the Greek usage really are that different. Modern understanding takes it simply as pride. Greek usage has it much more complex. It isn't just pride but being a prick about it. Oedipus solved the riddle of the Sphinx and he had every right to be proud of that fact. But, he wasn't a jerk about it. There is no hubris there.

quote:

---

The point is not that people could have made difference choices

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?You mean if any one of the entire cast of players involved in the story of Oedipus had chosen differently, it still would have turned out as it did? If Jocasta hadn't tried to kill the infant Oedipus, she still would have married him? If Oedipus had simply let Laius pass, he still would have killed him?

quote:

---

the point is that hubris made them make the choices they did, and as a result they were condemned to what they hoped to avoid.

---

Where is the hubris in trying to avoid disaster?

quote:

---

I've seen the Reduced Shakespeare Company in about six or seven different performances. Shakespeare is pretty good on a good night but I enjoyed Complete History of America (abridged) a lot more.

---

The Bible: The Complete Word of God just closed.

quote:

---

That's hubris. When you think you know better than your betters, but it turns out you don't.

---

No, that's drama. It'd be a really boring play if everybody simply accepted that horrible things are going to happen to them and don't put up any fuss. The act of standing against the storm isn't hubris.How do you explain Odysseus? He stood for the intellect of man against the power of the gods...and triumphed. Is he an example of "hubris"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.