My Opinion

In Germany, the church receives 19 billion Euro annually from the state. Why? Because they are churches and religions in this country have always been financed by taxpayers, although their assets are estimated to be about 500 billion euros (all property, land, property, etc.).

The Islamic associations are now yelling: STOP STOP, NOW I SPEECH! And also demand money and are immediately screaming discrimination, if they do not get it. Since the two Christian churches are trying to prevent any debate about the legality of this welfare-State benefits, they figure dairymaid-like, it is still most profitable for them if you mass tax money also the associations of Islam get (they don't pay it finally), that they voluntarily give up "their" money.

This is the main reason why the Islamic associations are pushing open doors, and the churches are at the forefront of equating Islam in every respect before they give up billions of euros in taxpayers' money. This also means that the Islam in the schools will be that imams and Islamic religion teachers will get financed by the government and of course, that they eventually get their own Islamic labor law and legally covered, who is not a Muslim, which simply doesn't get the jobs allocated by them in their institutions. Against this nothing can get done otherwise the Christian churches will loose their privileges too.

The state is thus trying to breed its own Euro-Islam, which he believes he can direct. Only the Islamic associations, however, are firmly linked with the foreign countries, with partly anti-democratic countries and governments, which are only too willing to use this privilege to subvert and influence. And also here the state will not intervene, because he would tangle in this case with the churches, which don't want to renounce no cent of tax money. Anyway others are paying it and with the often negative effects the population must come alone clear. If not, they are supposed to be "Islamophile" or "Islamophobia", in order to make them guilty and subordinate intolerance.

Even if Christians do not like it, the churches are mainly responsible for the fact that there is an Islamization. And with Islamization, we do not understand that all are forced to Islam, but that Islam is going to clash all the privileges that the churches already have. Including the non-criticism of their practices. The only rational way against Islamization and the excessive influence of foreign Islamic governments is therefore secularization and rethinking the privileges of the religions. All religions!

The bottom line it looks namely, that as Turkey gets here a big co-right and this co-right get even paid from the German tax payers, because many associations of Islam by the dominance of the Turkish members are Turkey enslaved. Germany, however, does not have any co-right in Turkey and other Islamic countries. In such a case it would get spoken about colonialism, Hitler and any right of scrutiny gets rejected.

As long as the churches are only keen on the tax money, they will always look away, whenever everywhere else Christians are getting persecuted, while they themselves contribute to this, that Islamic groups, who are advocating the Christian persecution in their homelands are rising their influence.

With the interpretation that the Vatican was primarily critical about fascism are Pope Pius XI and historians cleaning up thoroughly.

Pope Pius XI. (1922-1939) is well known to most by his encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" (English: "With Burning Concern"). The fact that he protested strongly against the discrimination against Jews is what historians call a "comforting narrative". On the contrary: "The Vatican played a central role in making the Fascist regime possible and keeping it in power," wrote a historian.

A prerequisite for investigations concerning the period under Pius XI was the opening of the Vatican archives in 2006. For more than seven years, historians have been researching there and in other archives.

An the beginning are the career and presuppositions of two men who shaped the Europe of the 1920s and 1930s: Achille Ratti, later pope Pius XI, and the fascist leader "Duce" Benito Mussolini.

Historians are portraying Pius XI. as an choleric power-man, feared by his colleagues, temper and stubborn. With these properties he was not dissimilar to the "Duce". Very vividly about the appearance of the dreaded papal temper tantrums: "Finally, he stood up and protested, screamed as loud as he could. He gasped and almost burst from anger..."

Cardinal Ratti became the head of the Roman Catholics at a time when the papacy had still not overcome one of its lowest points in history: During 1870, the church state got militarily annexed and Rome was declared to be the Italian capital. Humiliated and disempowered, the following Popes had to remain within the confines of today's Vatican state.

The First World War had overthrown Italy into a serious political and economic crisis; the socialists lost power. Mussolini, with the march to Rome in 1922, seized power. Against this background and under the impression of the October revolution in Russia, which worried about Communism throughout Europe, historians explain how the disastrous partnership between the Church and the fascists could come about.

This collaboration reached its peak in the Lateran Agreements concluded in 1929. They regulated the Constitution of the Vatican and the relations between the Church and the Italian State (Concordat). In addition, the Treaties included a financial compensation for the loss of the Church State.

Pius XI. counted on the Fascists because he hoped for the best possible protection for his church: he expected little from the traditionally close church-center party. With democracy as such, the pope did not much care about. He wanted to strengthen the Catholic Church again. Very important for him was the Catholic Action, the youth organization of his church.

Mussolini was aware about the Pope, whose intercession was politically important to him in almost one hundred percent Catholic Italy. With the help of sugar and whips, Mussolini was aware of the Pope whose intercession was politically important to him in almost one hundred percent Catholic Italy: the Fascist's leader, with the help of sugar and whips, ensured that the Fascist Party was officially friendly to Pius, who often teeth-crunching, made publicity for the Fascist Party by showing a good face to the evil game.

This did not work all the time. If the case happened that it did not work, fascist beating groups acted with brutal violence against priests and Catholic activists. They destroyed church institutions, beaten priests or forced them to drink castor oil - a perfidious and embarrassing torture which has been in vogue in Italy. Several times a foaming Pope made phone calls to Mussolini, protesting against such an action. He then Mussolini hid himself behind the alleged "People's temper" of his fascists and made demands.

But at least to a certain point, the pact also paid off for Pius XI He looked for Mussolini's support in order to prevent unpleasant book appearances and to enforce the "decent" behavior of women (for example, about offensive bathing clothes).

The Pope was silent on the anti-Semitic racial laws adopted in 1938. It was not easy for him, the racist theories from the Nazis and Fascists stood in contradiction to Christian doctrine.

In "With Burning Concern" the persecution of the Jews did not get mentioned, emphasize historians. On the other hand, the "Duce" granted the church privileges. Thus every fascist youth group had a priest, church expenses were paid with tax money, and Catholic clergymen always took a place of honor at state events.

Again and again this balance of benefits and costs threatened to tilt. On the other hand, Pius XI. Mussolini openly criticized in speeches or paused the signing of a document sulkingly. The Pope, for example, took the splendid reception which Mussolini Adolf Hitler prepared in Rome in 1938. Pius XI. Hitler and the Nazis hated Hitler's tendency to paganism, and he repeatedly complained to the Duce about the bad treatment of Catholic clergy in Germany.

There were several papal adlates for the balance between the two difficult leaders. Among them is Pietro Tacchi Venturi, an antisemitic Jesuit priest, who often served as a mediator and tried to maintain the relationship between Pope and Duce. The inglorious role of Catholic newspapers such as the Jesuit magazine "La Civilta Cattolica" also describes "The First Deputy". The paper kept bobbing against Jews and Protestants.

According to the latest findings, a papal adviser is not well off: Pius XI. Cardinal Secretary Eugenio Pacelli - his successor, Pope Pius XII. (1939-1958). Pacelli's role was that of a "system holder" in the effort to preserve Mussolini's favor. The events described in "The First Deputy" could have a definite influence on the possible canonization of Pacelli. Toward the end of his life Pius XI. Apparently, that he had miscalculated: the racial laws, which were also applied to formerly Jewish Catholics, and the massive persecution of the Jews shocked the pope.

When he turned to Mussolini, he was scorned by the fact that the Fascists would not treat the Jews as badly as the church had done in the past. Pius XI was already seriously ill. Secretly at a recent encyclical, which should contain sharper criticism of fascism and racism. But there was no more. He died on February 10, 1939.

Bible and evolution theory: these are two spheres which seem like opposites. But as the history of mankind in the "book of books" leads to different opinions.

Is the story of Adam and Eve to be understood as a metaphor for the existence of early human hunter-gatherers in paradise? Cain kills Abel - an image of conflicts between nomadic herders and sedentary farmers? At first glance, it seems unlikely that events so far in the "darkness of our primate past" were, should have found their way into one of the most important books of mankind. When the Bible was the big change in the lives of early humans was mixed farming finally been largely completed.

Ancient myths as a basis

However, evolutionary biologist and historian, argue the Bible was not over night or out of nothing. Rather, it is the result of many different stories, myths and oral traditions, which already had been ancient in part at times of the formation of the old testament.

May be a reflection of traditions from the early days of Homo sapiens ranged into at the time of the creation of the Bible, is her thesis. It is believed this condition as a likely you can discover actually much perplexing in the Bible. The expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden is a metaphor for "the strongest a event in the history of mankind: the transition from egalitarian of hunter and collector groups to the sedentary way of life with agriculture and animal breeding".

This change to living conditions, for which people have been biologically not prepared and actually were until today ill-suited is the basis for many of the most memorable stories of the Bible. "The Bible is probably the most ambitious attempt to get those human problems that plague the Homo sapiens since the settle down."

Change of circumstances

In anthropology, called an inadequate adaptation to the environment "Mismatch". By the radical change in the quality of life of Homo sapiens and to agriculture and animal breeding a number of problems was surfaced abruptly could not get explained by themselves in another way.

The hitherto nomadic groups were now far more dependent on the vagaries of weather than before, because they had an impact on the harvest. The Biblical Flood might well have had a real "model" in the form of flooding or a tsunami.

Epidemics as God's punishment

Also the early farmers had been afflicted much more frequent and more intense of infectious diseases and epidemics. Domestic animals living in close proximity to were carriers of pathogens, which eventually went over to the people. They had searched for explanations for the new, terrible plagues.

Even the "emergence" a powerful, single God from an animistic world view inhabited by ghosts, the early humans had probably explained as a necessary "adjustment performance". It had to be a more powerful, more irritable God in the game, and people had to have somehow attracted his anger. From this got born a "catalog of sins" in addition to a number of commandments which should govern the life pleasing to God. The observance of the commandments in biblical societies was flanked by draconian penalties.

One sins and all need to suffer

Behind it is the belief that the sin of an individual, can entail penalties for society as a whole. Viewed in this light cruel punishments for crimes considered today as a minor can understand: the sinner or the sinner endanger finally with their behavior the whole community.

The other reason for the strict laws in the area of marriage and sexuality is simply the rapid spread of sexually transmitted diseases through the close coexistence of many people: monogamy and the constraint of sexuality of particularly women should remedy. Also the cleanliness rules fall into the category of disease prevention.

Jesus softens again

The New Testament with its message of charity in the reasoning in a way to the beginnings of the people returns: the doctrine of Jesus does not take back the commandments of God, she mitigate them but with the recommendation to mercy.

Based on the story of the woman taken in adultery makes it clear: Jesus won't defend the sin, but with his testimony he claimed something "who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her", which was probably natural in "Old hunter and collector culture": solidarity in the Group and a certain sense of proportion in terms of punishment.

Back to the roots

With Jesus back in the prehistoric times? That would shorten the theory too much. But what the Bible, particularly the Jesus story, "demanded by the people in terms of charity, is so simple to behave like hunters and gatherers in the own community always so conciliatory".

This article shows only that each translation is an interpretation and mirrors the opinion from the translator. Such translation failures can get found in each translation. As older the original text is and as more translation generations got done during the time as more of this interpretation failures are getting found in the last version. Don't forget that during the old time only the mighty ones have been able to read and write. These mighty ones have influenced the content of the interpretation into their own favor too. For this reason only stupid ones are believing into some written text without using their own brain.

There is a legend, a richly decorated narrative. And it goes like this: During the first half of the 3rd century BC asked the Egyptian king Ptolemy II Philadelphus the high priest Eleazar from Jerusalem to make a Greek translation of the Hebrew Code (Torah) for the famous Alexandrian library; 72 Jewish savants, six out of the twelve tribes of Israel, a "divine number", are on their way and transferred at the island of Pharao during a time period of 72 days the five books of Moses (Pentateuch) into Greek; It gradually formed the largest translation work of antiquity, the "Septuagint" (literally: the one of the Seventy).

A fantastic story, recorded in the so-called Aristeas letter, but nothing else than just a legend - at least for the used time frame of 72 days.

Legends, as we know, have a long life. The mythic narrative is picked up by the Jewish historian of Josephus Flavius, who died around the year 100 AD. And it expands the philosopher Philo of Alexandria (died in 50 AD): all 72 scholars were strictly apart from their peers and come to an identical conclusion independently of each other.

In reality, showing the biblical research, the giant project is (abbreviated as Roman numerals LXX) naturally grown slowly, it could even not get completed in the second century BC. However, since belong to it already the other books of the Hebrew Bible (Prophets, wisdom literature, etc.), but on individual scriptures the work continued until the time of the New Testament – for example the Psalms.

Don't forget that the Old Testament contains the basics from where got the New Testament and the Quran developed. Already this source contains a lot of interpretation failures and you can be sure a lot of fake stories added by the mighty ones. So don't tell me that you are believing the only available truth. It shows only that you are not open minded, you are repeating only the content you have learned and you are unable to use your own brain.

Mythical origin also the biblical claims that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Spirit - and Maria has been a Virgin at his birth. In the Ancient Orient and in Greece it was tradition that heroes and rulers had gods as fathers in a way. The Evangelist Matthew sees through the virgin birth also fulfilled a prophecy of the Prophet Isaiah that he already understands in a certain way: In the Hebrew original, the speech is only of a "young woman" (the Hebrew word "Almah" describes only the age and not if the woman is single or already married, a virgin got called in Hebrew "betulah"), only the Greek translation of the Hebrew text made it a "Virgin". And so Matthew understood the text.

As Luke writes Matthew that Jesus got born in Bethlehem - unlike the Evangelists Mark and John, who did do not report the birth. He also tells of people and events that for no nativity play are hardly imaginable: the wise men from the East, the Massacre of the Innocents and the escape of Jesus family to Egypt. But probably has nothing to do with it historical reality.

No historical source attests that Herodes the great, who then ruled as King of Rome grace over Israel, ever told a child murder Herod. "The point is to show the danger to the newborn Jesus similar to Moses in the Old Testament, it’s modeled after Matthew draws", explains Jens Schröter, a theologian of the Humboldt-University of Berlin. Also the escape to Egypt should be an invention of the evangelists. Probably Matthew wanted to meet a further prophecy from the Old Testament.

The fact that the birth of a great man - Jesus - raises a star is another mythical motif of the Orient. The wise, who allegedly followed his light toward Bethlehem, it probably also not given, but they fulfilled according Schröter in Matthew an important function: "You should show that Jesus' birth was important for all people, not only for the Jews ".

Jesus is the Messiah prophesied by the ancient Jewish scriptures - Luke and especially Matthew wanted to represent that already in the Christian way at the beginning of their Gospels. And so they had to make the historical circumstances in a particular light. Herein they did not differ from their contemporaries, which is why it would be wrong to measure the evangelists on the scale of modern historiography. Apart from it was in antiquity, accessing mythical elements. "In the stories about Jesus birth had the legendary motifs that task, to make it clear that a very special person had come to the world", said Schröter.

Believe that what is in your comfort and into what you can trust. Don't accept anything word by word only for the reason that it is written somewhere. You will not really find the truth - you'll find only different opinions. Take the chance and build up your own opinion by using your own brain instead of stupidly following the crowd.