A Chrisitan accpets Islam

[Nietzsche]

i cant remember any of the people i have met to have fled their country for reason of government corruption or injustice. most of them got here because they want to live in a western country and get education+lots of money.


Charlemange was a frank, franks (inhabitants of frankia(france)) are a german tribe. Yeah in scandinavia there was also bloodshed but i dont remember it to be really significant. for the most part people who rose to power became christian prior to it and used their power to support the church the best they could and encourage christinization of the population. no bloodshed.

There was bloodshed but not to such an extent as to consider it signifcant. There was a book which i have come in contact with which told of a viking age story of a pagan who gets convinced that christianity is true because the pagan god Frey demanded human sacrafices every spring and in christianity there was no human sacrifices after Jesus there is not even animal sacrifice. the book is based on folktales, i cant remember what it is called but it was quite old. something with "frey and his wife" or something called like "snaketongue..." or whatever. I think this resembles the majority of christianization of pagans more than the theory through opression and bloodshed.

You have never opened a history book in your life, have you?

 

[YmirGF]

Got any specifics to show any Arabs who spread Islam more forcibly?

Read up on the Muslim rampage into the Indian subcontinent.

A sanitized Wiki link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#Persecution_by_Muslim_Rulers

 

[Kirran]

I mean you did not deny in that thread that Christians convert to athiesm .

you said here :

By no means do I deny that there are Christians who leave Christianity and become atheist (also a small number who become atheist while remaining Christian). I'm just saying that, quite obviously, the majority of Christians are not doing so.

The word 'most' refers to the majority, which is to say over 50%.

 

[Sees]

Read up on the Muslim rampage into the Indian subcontinent.

A sanitized Wiki link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#Persecution_by_Muslim_Rulers

Even as a toned-down summary on hisorical events there is still much crazy stuff in there. I had to do a double-take on an excerpt mentoning how even one "pious saint" had 5 slaves

----------------------------

Massive spread of any religion most often has to do with it becoming a political force powered by exclusivism ideology - whether using economic pressure or arms. Once the ideology gets enough of a hold initially, within centuries massive areas of land and new converts/subjects are acquired. The history is pretty plain and out front.

Most of the beliefs of the religion don't play a part in it or are even averse to the cause - just needs a key component or two that makes others bad, sinful, evil, heathens who need reform, governing, looting, slaving, etc. by the good guys. Down the road some of their descendants will even be thankful for it!

 

[Unification]

Didn't watch the video, but being a Christian and being Islam mean the exact same things internally.

 

[Unification]

You did not answer my question. Do you believe it is a popularity contest? Will you convert to Atheism because it is becoming sooo popular?

Some "atheists" are Christened and Islam within.

 

[Jumi]

Some "atheists" are Christened and Islam within.

Do you mean they are cultural Christians?

 

[Aquitaine]

Massive spread of any religion most often has to do with it becoming a political force powered by exclusivism ideology - whether using economic pressure or arms. Once the ideology gets enough of a hold initially, within centuries massive areas of land and new converts/subjects are acquired. The history is pretty plain and out front.

Most of the beliefs of the religion don't play a part in it or are even averse to the cause - just needs a key component or two that makes others bad, sinful, evil, heathens who need reform, governing, looting, slaving, etc. by the good guys. Down the road some of their descendants will even be thankful for it!

Aye, it seems throughout history an awful lot of the "big" religions were spread in this violent manner.
Sometimes, I think many religions were invented with the purpose of being used as a tool for social control.

 

[Aquitaine]

I cannot take Zakir Naik seriously, he is apparently a Doctor, yet he said "I have never seen a book called FACT of Evolution, instead I have only seen THEORY of Evolution".

 

[YmirGF]

I cannot take Zakir Naik seriously, he is apparently a Doctor, yet he said "I have never seen a book called FACT of Evolution, instead I have only seen THEORY of Evolution".

Idiocy on steroids, eh?

 

[YmirGF]

Even as a toned-down summary on hisorical events there is still much crazy stuff in there. I had to do a double-take on an excerpt mentoning how even one "pious saint" had 5 slaves

I once read an account where a fellow who witnessed a pitched battle, violent and relentless suddenly stop and the Muslims gathered together, rolled out their prayer rugs and began their ritual prayer. Curious, the chronicler (and others there) thought that the fighting was over and most of the people stood watching this with a wary respect ... ... then, when the prayers were finished, they picked up their swords and weapons and launched into the people gathered with such ferocity that the writer wondered what kind of god it was that did this to his followers. I've wondered much the same since.

 

[JoStories]

Truthfully, the West is on the verge of collapse. Western Europe is in turmoil and American culture is falling apart. Culture and society is decaying and becoming more and more disgusting. The economy is in the crapper and the gap between the rich and the poor is only getting wider and wider. So an increase in atheism isn't surprising, since the culture encourages hedonism, selfishness and individualism. A lot of people aren't very educated about religion. Plus, the public face of religion in America is mostly a joke. You have morons like Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen and a number of others that make a mockery out of religion, promote hatred and use it as a tool to get rich.

I could not agree more and this is something I have been saying for at least a decade or so. This country's values are now disgusting and I am disgusted by it. If people truly did live by the tenets of their faiths, no matter which faith they hold to, perhaps things would be better, perhaps not. But you are correct about the face of Christianity I am afraid. I have no problem with people who are Christian and my mother is about the best example of one I can think of, but as you note, those people like Robertson and so on are spreading a faith that seems the opposite of what Christ taught. I truly believe we are doomed and perhaps even within my lifetime.

 

[Augustus]

Read up on the Muslim rampage into the Indian subcontinent.

Sorry, my original point was a bit ambiguously expressed.

I wasn't meaning that the Arabs created a vast empire simply based on being jolly nice chaps with an easy charm and witty repartee, more that they weren't actually that into forcibly converting the population to Islam.

The 'convert or die' type attitude that is often associated with Muslim conquerers was never actually that prevalent during the Arab conquests. They tended to be happy to tax people for the privilege of keeping their own faith. Certain leader actually tried to prevent people converting to Islam as it was damaging their tax base.

This isn't to present them as bastions of chivalry and progressive, egalitarian tolerance, just that in the more specific sense of 'spread by the sword' (i.e. forced conversion on pain of death), Christians such as Charlemagne actually have a worse record.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

You have never opened a history book in your life, have you?

I have, thats why im making the points i am making.

 

[Nietzsche]

I once read an account where a fellow who witnessed a pitched battle, violent and relentless suddenly stop and the Muslims gathered together, rolled out their prayer rugs and began their ritual prayer. Curious, the chronicler (and others there) thought that the fighting was over and most of the people stood watching this with a wary respect ... ... then, when the prayers were finished, they picked up their swords and weapons and launched into the people gathered with such ferocity that the writer wondered what kind of god it was that did this to his followers. I've wondered much the same since.

Question. What, exactly, is the difference between that and a bunch of warriors asking for the Berserk? They asked their God to bring them victory in battle(I'd assume).

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

Question. What, exactly, is the difference between that and a bunch of warriors asking for the Berserk? They asked their God to bring them victory in battle(I'd assume).

funny thing, according to this guy, whos a historian (i believe), the historically recorded berserkers were christian.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

There was bloodshed but not to such an extent as to consider it signifcant.

What? At what point does forced conversion become significant to you? Is there a threshold of people being killed for not adopting the new religion beyond which you'll care? What is it? 5,000? 10,000? 50,000?

There was a book which i have come in contact with which told of a viking age story of a pagan who gets convinced that christianity is true because the pagan god Frey demanded human sacrafices every spring and in christianity there was no human sacrifices after Jesus there is not even animal sacrifice. the book is based on folktales, i cant remember what it is called but it was quite old. something with "frey and his wife" or something called like "snaketongue..." or whatever. I think this resembles the majority of christianization of pagans more than the theory through opression and bloodshed.

You really need to learn critical evaluation of sources - that book would have been written by a Christian source - the one thing you can say for Christianity is that it spread literacy across Europe - and it would have been in their interest to malign local beliefs in order to make their own seem more true and just. Maybe it was true, maybe it wasn't - without a more objective source we'll never know.

I think this resembles the majority of christianization of pagans more than the theory through opression and bloodshed.

Then you're ignoring the example of history. In most places where Christianity showed up the missionaries and monks worked their way into the retinue of kings and local chieftains who they could then convince to order their people to the Christian faith. And the top-down model of conversion worked - it allowed Christians to destroy Pagan sacred sites - or co-opt them entirely - and build churches on them. Okay, sure, they converted peasants and lower-class people at first but their ultimate objective would be the ruling elite. The Saxons are a good example of this - Charlemagne converted the ruling class but the rebellions the Holy Roman Empire faced came mostly from the ruled people who clung on to their worship of the Old Gods. Then when these people decided they didn't want to be ruled by an elite who wouldn't let them practice their beliefs they were slaughtered.

The subject of forced conversion was so important to the spread of Christianity that it was even touched on by Pope Innocent III in 1201. From Wikipedia:

"Pope Innocent III pronounced in 1201 that even if torture and intimidation had been employed in receiving the sacrament, one nevertheless:

...does receive the impress of Christianity and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling. ... [For] the grace of Baptism had been received, and they had been anointed with the sacred oil, and had participated in the body of the Lord, they might properly be forced to hold to the faith which they had accepted perforce, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed, and lest they hold in contempt and consider vile the faith they had joined."

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

What? At what point does forced conversion become significant to you? Is there a threshold of people being killed for not adopting the new religion beyond which you'll care? What is it? 5,000? 10,000? 50,000?




You really need to learn critical evaluation of sources - that book would have been written by a Christian source - the one thing you can say for Christianity is that it spread literacy across Europe - and it would have been in their interest to malign local beliefs in order to make their own seem more true and just. Maybe it was true, maybe it wasn't - without a more objective source we'll never know.




Then you're ignoring the example of history. In most places where Christianity showed up the missionaries and monks worked their way into the retinue of kings and local chieftains who they could then convince to order their people to the Christian faith. And the top-down model of conversion worked - it allowed Christians to destroy Pagan sacred sites - or co-opt them entirely - and build churches on them. Okay, sure, they converted peasants and lower-class people at first but their ultimate objective would be the ruling elite. The Saxons are a good example of this - Charlemagne converted the ruling class but the rebellions the Holy Roman Empire faced came mostly from the ruled people who clung on to their worship of the Old Gods. Then when these people decided they didn't want to be ruled by an elite who wouldn't let them practice their beliefs they were slaughtered.

The subject of forced conversion was so important to the spread of Christianity that it was even touched on by Pope Innocent III in 1201. From Wikipedia:

"Pope Innocent III pronounced in 1201 that even if torture and intimidation had been employed in receiving the sacrament, one nevertheless:

...does receive the impress of Christianity and may be forced to observe the Christian Faith as one who expressed a conditional willingness though, absolutely speaking, he was unwilling. ... [For] the grace of Baptism had been received, and they had been anointed with the sacred oil, and had participated in the body of the Lord, they might properly be forced to hold to the faith which they had accepted perforce, lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed, and lest they hold in contempt and consider vile the faith they had joined."

I would consider large massacres to be bloodshed. Like the incident with the saxons where 4500 pagans were killed. but i am not familiar with any such bloodshed happening during the conversion of scandinavia. as i said, the christianization of the north was far more based on a top-down undertaking where the king and royalty would be conviced christian first and then would convert their pagan subjects next.

 

[sandandfoam]

I once read an account where a fellow who witnessed a pitched battle, violent and relentless suddenly stop and the Muslims gathered together, rolled out their prayer rugs and began their ritual prayer. Curious, the chronicler (and others there) thought that the fighting was over and most of the people stood watching this with a wary respect ... ... then, when the prayers were finished, they picked up their swords and weapons and launched into the people gathered with such ferocity that the writer wondered what kind of god it was that did this to his followers. I've wondered much the same since.

I come from a culture that decimated the indigenous population of North and South America, that in the last century produced 2 world wars that resulted in millions of deaths and murdered on an industrial scale. In this century we've dropped bombs and ignited sectarian conflict in the Iraq and elsewhere. That does not include the relatively recent murder of innumerable Bosnian Muslims and an emerging callousness to families fleeing war in Syria, Libya and elsewhere.
I hope I'm not held responsible for the behaviour of my group.

 

[Sees]

I come from a culture that decimated the indigenous population of North and South America, that in the last century produced 2 world wars that resulted in millions of deaths and murdered on an industrial scale. In this century we've dropped bombs and ignited sectarian conflict in the Iraq and elsewhere. That does not include the relatively recent murder of innumerable Bosnian Muslims and an emerging callousness to families fleeing war in Syria, Libya and elsewhere.
I hope I'm not held responsible for the behaviour of my group.

The Irish?