11 year old girl facing death penalty for "blasphemy"

[waitasec]

That is true. However, if it wasn't this law, it would be something else. Religion is used as an excuse, as it is easy. But if it wasn't religion, they would have used something else.

but the context is of a religious nature in this case, isn't it?

 

[fallingblood]

Falling Blood I realize you don't want your religion blamed, but I wasn't aware you were a Catholic.

Very often they had to convert or be killed. In other cases it was convert or be intensely hated. Medieval times after the fall of Rome were nothing like a tea-party get together were the Christian missonaries got along with everyone who didn't want to submit to what they saw as the ultimate truth that one would die and go to Hell without.

I'm not Catholic, and I really don't care if Christianity was blamed or not, if it deserved blame. It really means nothing, nor reflects on what Christianity is today. Nor does it reflect on me. So whether or not a religion should be blamed is besides the point. I mean, when Satanism is blamed for atrocities (Son of Sam for example) do you think it is an accurate reflection of the religion? I ie it.

And during the medieval time period, religion wasn't a big thing. As in, people just didn't have the time to actually really spend much time focused on it because they were busy surviving. Yes, there were some who were forced to assimilate into the culture, which meant accepting the religion; however, the main point was assimilation. And this was an exceptional idea, as it allowed for the empire to grow. We see this over and over again with other empires.

 

[fallingblood]

but the context is of a religious nature in this case, isn't it?

Sure, because it is easy to hide behind religion. Or better, claim that what is done is inspired by a divine nature. It is a great excuse for weak cowardly people.

But this isn't something that the religion really supports, nor does it really showcase what the religion is. And the actual reason for such an atrocity is not even the religion. It is the culture behind the group, and not the religious aspect of the culture.

 

[jasonwill2]

I'm not Catholic, and I really don't care if Christianity was blamed or not, if it deserved blame. It really means nothing, nor reflects on what Christianity is today. Nor does it reflect on me. So whether or not a religion should be blamed is besides the point. I mean, when Satanism is blamed for atrocities (Son of Sam for example) do you think it is an accurate reflection of the religion? I ie it.

And during the medieval time period, religion wasn't a big thing. As in, people just didn't have the time to actually really spend much time focused on it because they were busy surviving. Yes, there were some who were forced to assimilate into the culture, which meant accepting the religion; however, the main point was assimilation. And this was an exceptional idea, as it allowed for the empire to grow. We see this over and over again with other empires.

Then why not just admit it reflected Christianity back then?

 

[Orias]

Actually no. If we look at Europe, it did not account for most of the world's population. We can look at the Sassanid Empire (224-651 C.E.) with a population of close to 20 million. There was the Tang Dynasty (618-987 C.E.) with a population between 50-80 million. And the Mongol Empire (1206-1368 C.E.) with a population of 100 million. None of these were European empires. And these were just single empires. These were some of the largest empires during those times, and really, we are ignoring the vast majority of rest of the world. If we just look at Africa and the Middle East, we see large empires growing there as well. Even in America, we had a population of around 50 million (some estimate as high as 100 million). That isn't even mentioning most of Africa, Asia (that part not ruled by the empires I mentioned), or Australia, and the various other island nations.

What does any of this have to do with Europe's population?

Europe actually did account for a major part of the worlds population during the medieval area accounting for 147 million people. Your references are too spread out, in date and location for the time period we are discussing. Sure there are populations of millions of people on other locations including Asia, Africa, and South America, but these populations were not nearly as dense as Europe (maybe besides Asia).

To state that Europe accounted for most of the world's population simply is ignorant. It ignores the vast majority of history else where.
Yes, Europe is often referred to as part of the Western world: Western world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And in ancient times, it was the west (as we didn't know about America). Today, it is also called part of the Western world, and in fact, the idea of the Western world is partly based on populations being descended from Europeans. So to say that Europe isn't part of the Western world, when it always has been considered such, is again, ignorant.

You got this one, I forgot such demographics are due to the political nature instead of the geographical location.

As for being touched by the "Christian" sword, sure. Some in fact were. However, Christianity didn't grow to become a dominant position in the Roman Empire by force. In fact, it was persecuted throughout that time (sometimes just by the general public, and other times by the government). It has also been persecuted in various other places (China being one that jumps to my mind) and yet still we see many converting to Christianity even though there is no sword pointed at them, but besides by the government.

A sword being pointed is a sword being pointed, it doesn't matter who does it. And obviously, some people don't have to be forced to convert, but again, thats not what I'm talking about here. These people do not account for a majority of Christianity's success, unless of course you consider the apostles in reference that they helped spread by tongue and without violence, then sure. But again, they were not entirely relevant in the spread of Christian doctrine throughout Europe.

By the time the Crusades began, they really weren't meant to spread Christianity, but instead, reconquer lands that had already been lost.

So basically they were spreading back into familiar territory.

1/3 is less than 2/3 isn't it? Thus, 1/3 can't be a majority of all people, when 2/3 of people are not Christians. You claimed that Christianity was a majority, and it simply isn't.

1/3 is a majority. Any novice mathematician will tell you this.

But it isn't. More so, that isn't what you stated. You said that Christianity is known world wide, while various forms of paganism, and henotheism are unknown. That is false. I pointed out why in my last post.

No you didn't, you just stated the opposite of what I said.

Christianity is known world wide, while other various forms of paganism and henotheism are unknown.

That isn't false. We can look at Paul. He was out doing missionary work long before any thought of invasion. He didn't go before the armies, as there were no armies going there.

Many Pagans were not given a choice.

Your Paul strawman is acknowledged, Paul existed before Christians were in any position to invade, thus being irrelevant to the time period we're talking about.

And in fact, there were many missionaries going all over before armies were even thought of to be sent to those areas. Already by the year 80 C.E., there were missionaries being reported in France. By the year 200 C.E., there were missionaries going further north in Europe (Great Britain even) and south to Africa. They were even in Asia. So the missionaries were there long before the invading army. That is why I had previously implied your knowledge of history is lacking.

What does any of this have to do with proving my history of knowledge is lacking? I'm aware that there has always been missionaries, but I'm also aware that because of the missionaries, the Christians knew where to invade.

Christians may not be able to agree on Jesus dying for us now (and actually, I think pretty much all Christians agree on that), but that was the official position when Christianity started moving into Europe. So yes, I will bring it up.

Ok, I wasn't talking about whether or not Christians can agree that Jesus died for us but that he was God.

As far as this is concerned, it does not strengthen your argument nor is it relevant.

As for natives of Scandinavia, they were separated by political governing. Yet, obviously, this new religion offered them something that they wanted. If it didn't, they would have accepted it.

They didn't accept it, and because of Christianity it caused two major factions in the native lands to go to war and kill each other.

This is simple history here, and this is what I have been referencing the whole time. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to argue here.

That was only later on. When Christianity began to spread, it was spread through word. It didn't start spreading through sword until much later.

Like I said.

Sure they do. They became a major force in the Roman Empire not by force, but by word of mouth. It has become a major force in many places without the sword. And really, people converted by the sword seldom remain converted.

Christianity's spread into Rome was in large part due to Constantine, whom converted during a large battle.

How many did the inquisition really kill? Around 3,000? And many were Christian. If Christianity was trying to spread the religion, why kill their own members? Your stance simply makes no sense.

Thats like asking why they used to put maggots on an open wound.

I was referring to when the Church ruled much of Europe. When the Church was also the leader of a kingdom.

So was I.

And I agree that evils are spread by humans. However, it hardly is actually what religion teaches. Extremists and zealous individuals seldom actually follow what the religion teaches, and usually are more political then anything. You don't attack the Pentagon, or the Twin Towers for religious reasons. You attack them for political reasons. You don't attack war ships, or embassies for religious reasons. You attack them for political reasons.

I didn't say religions teach evil, but they are as inherently as evil as man is therefore allowing any type of "evil" perception to prevail.

And concerning these attacks, a political attack can actually be a religious one as well.

Just like there are politics about religion, and there are politics about philosophy, they are not mutually exclusive.

When I state Christianity, it should be obvious that I'm referring to the Christian nation, and the Church, which was the government. So it should be obvious what I'm saying. The difference between furthering a religion, and power is quite a bit. One is a theological position, which generally teaches peace, love, etc. Power is dominating others (Christianity does not). And you don't further a religion by killing members of that religion.

I don't agree with this, Christianity has dominated and killed thousands in order to gain its current seat.

And you can actually further a religion by killing members of the said religion, this goes back to my reference about putting maggots on an open wound.

It wasn't about heresy. It was about challenging the power of the Church. It is the same reason why China censors various ideas. Because those ideas challenge the power of China. Really no difference here.

Exactly, heresy is seen as challenging the authority of the church.

 

[Orias]

You haven't shown any of this though. What we have are empires expanding, basically like any other empire would. And if Christians were trying to spread Christianity, why did they also kill other Christians? There were even Christian nations going to war with other Christian nations. That is just a dumb way to spread Christianity then.

I have shown it actually, in almost every block of text in my response to you I continually reference Christianity's spread throughout the European world with violence. Hell, I even brought up the Spanish conquest. These are things taught in middle school.

Well of course, they wouldn't run yelling "Allah akbhar." To suggest such is just ridiculous. But they would probably run yelling "Die" or something similar. We see it all of the time. And really, the war in the Holy Land has nothing to do with religion (or very little). It has to do with a struggle for land. We have seen that over and over again, with warring tribes. Many times, the warring tribes have the same religion, yet they still fight over land.

The war over the Holy land obviously has to do with control of land, but the reasons justifying the acts have to do with religion.

These things are obvious.

Honestly, I doubt you have ever asked anything to an educated historian. That is part of my field of study. I have looked at the study of "others" how how various groups of people have interacted throughout history. It really never has anything to do with religion. As in, you take religion out, and you still have the same atrocities.

But thats why I took college courses in history right?

How does religion not have to do with the topic we're talking about, which is specifically directed at religion?

You can't say if we take religion out and we have the same atrocities, it doesn't logically apply to the current reality. This is because religion is not nonexistent.

But I understand your "what if" argument, it just doesn't apply here.

 

[Looncall]

Sure, because it is easy to hide behind religion. Or better, claim that what is done is inspired by a divine nature. It is a great excuse for weak cowardly people.

But this isn't something that the religion really supports, nor does it really showcase what the religion is. And the actual reason for such an atrocity is not even the religion. It is the culture behind the group, and not the religious aspect of the culture.

Please explain why the same sorts of atrocities appear among diverse cultures that share that particular religion. That is the main question in all this. How can one claim that it is not the religion that leads to the atrocities?

Further, in many cases, it is clerics who are howling for blood. One would assume that those clerics are expert in their religion.

It may be that, although the holy texts may not explicitly call for the atrocities, they may induce attitudes that lead to the atrocities.

 

[fallingblood]

Please explain why the same sorts of atrocities appear among diverse cultures that share that particular religion. That is the main question in all this. How can one claim that it is not the religion that leads to the atrocities?

Most of these atrocities can be found outside of the religion as well. If we look at blasphemy for instance, we see a similar idea in Christianity (the Inquisition and witch hunts for example). We also see it in non-religious aspects, such as the Red Scare. So we do see such atrocities regardless of religion.

If these events were happening in just those religions, it would be easy to state that it was an aspect of that religion. However, when we see these events occurring in a wide range of ideas, the it really isn't possible to blame on religion or religion at all (that is if they also occur outside of religion).

Further, in many cases, it is clerics who are howling for blood. One would assume that those clerics are expert in their religion.

There are many clerics who are simply corrupt. They want power, and absolute power. You get that by ruling with a strong arm. And in fact, we have seen that throughout history in those areas. The various tribal leaders ruled in a similar fashion. We have even seen brutal dictators doing the same thing as well. It is nothing more than ruling with an iron fist.

It may be that, although the holy texts may not explicitly call for the atrocities, they may induce attitudes that lead to the atrocities.

One can misconstrue the texts to defend the atrocities. It actually isn't hard to justify anything with a holy text. Partially that is because they are such massive works, created over a long period of time, in many different situations.

However, when we see the vast majority of adherents not interpreting the texts in those ways, then it is pretty safe to bet the extremists really are misconstruing the actual text.

 

[NIX]

It's a good thing we have big bad tyrants to save us all from the words of 11 year olds with disabilities.

 

[waitasec]

Sure, because it is easy to hide behind religion. Or better, claim that what is done is inspired by a divine nature. It is a great excuse for weak cowardly people.

But this isn't something that the religion really supports, nor does it really showcase what the religion is. And the actual reason for such an atrocity is not even the religion. It is the culture behind the group, and not the religious aspect of the culture.

i agree. and the odds of being able to challenge this idea is nil ... as it seems...
and what makes it nil? it's the understanding that they have the last word of god.
(however that may be interpreted is up to the individual) but when you have a group of people all believing the same thing and you have another group of people believing they have the last will and testament of god, all living in the same region, then it is no wonder there is tension and misery...
it is a sad sad state of affairs.

i am reminded of the turmoil between the catholics and the protestants in ireland...all hiding behind their religious label

what a waste of time...if people could only be straightforward other than spewing out "my god is stronger than yours...or my interpretation of god is right and yours is wrong" and get to the heart of the political matter...we would progress a little quicker than we have in the last few millennia

 

[fallingblood]

Then why not just admit it reflected Christianity back then?

Because it didn't. It reflected a government that was operating behind the Church. The Church was both a religious institution, and a political institution. To claim everything they did was in the name of religion, or reflected Christianity, simply is ridiculous, as they were also a political institution, who worked just as any other political institution did.

The vast majority of Christians did not entertain such ideas. In fact, many were beaten down by the Church (which is why there was a lot of negative sentiment towards the Church, to the point in which people would assassinate the Pope) in the form of exuberant taxation and the like.

 

[Orias]

It's a good thing we have big bad tyrants to save us all from the words of 11 year olds with disabilities.

If I recall correctly, its the execution of these tyrants thats draws large crowds and popcorn.

Remember King Louie? Off with his head!! And bring your children to watch!!

 

[NIX]

eh. Labels are not things. Labels are tags people STICK ON THINGS.


People often confuse the map, for the territory.
Or the bag, for the tag.

The territory is reality.
The map is just someone's representation of reality.
The bag is the bag.
The label is just someone's name for it.

 

[NIX]

If I recall correctly, its the execution of these tyrants thats draws large crowds and popcorn.

Remember King Louie? Off with his head!! And bring your children to watch!!

Tyrants are entertaining! Especially when they provide popcorn and cake! And salvation!

 

[Orias]

Heh, you said bag, then tag. I've been crippled by those before

 

[Orias]

Tyrants are entertaining! Especially when they provide popcorn and cake! And salvation!

And blood! :yes:

 

[NIX]

eh. Labels are not things. Labels are tags people STICK ON THINGS.


People often confuse the map, for the territory.
Or the bag, for the tag.

The territory is reality.
The map is just someone's representation of reality.
The bag is the bag.
The label is just someone's name for it.

Tags represent ownership in the world of the human construct.
As such people not only think they own their 'tags' and labels, but they think they own mass scale rights to their own favored definitions and meanings and USAGE as (personally) applied to the tags and labels they (imagine they own).

 

[Looncall]

Most of these atrocities can be found outside of the religion as well. If we look at blasphemy for instance, we see a similar idea in Christianity (the Inquisition and witch hunts for example). We also see it in non-religious aspects, such as the Red Scare. So we do see such atrocities regardless of religion.

If these events were happening in just those religions, it would be easy to state that it was an aspect of that religion. However, when we see these events occurring in a wide range of ideas, the it really isn't possible to blame on religion or religion at all (that is if they also occur outside of religion).
There are many clerics who are simply corrupt. They want power, and absolute power. You get that by ruling with a strong arm. And in fact, we have seen that throughout history in those areas. The various tribal leaders ruled in a similar fashion. We have even seen brutal dictators doing the same thing as well. It is nothing more than ruling with an iron fist.
One can misconstrue the texts to defend the atrocities. It actually isn't hard to justify anything with a holy text. Partially that is because they are such massive works, created over a long period of time, in many different situations.

However, when we see the vast majority of adherents not interpreting the texts in those ways, then it is pretty safe to bet the extremists really are misconstruing the actual text.

Well weaseled!

We are concerned with current events. Where in the world, outside of muslim-majority countries, does one find people being imprisoned or killed over trifling imagined insults to religion? Remember the teddy bear incident? Especially, where else do we find howling mobs doing the killing?

If even the clerics are corrupt, it does not speak well of the religion, does it?

 

[NIX]

And blood! :yes:

Well salvation always includes blood and righteousness! We get ours in the arenas of the multiplex and home gaming theaters. Complete with microwave popcorn. It's a lot less messy. Plus we get Nazi zombies. Take that.

 

[NIX]

oohhhh. Maybe we could market games to certain countries, where you get points for killing blasphemous 11 year old disabled children! You could get 'stone' upgrades and such.