Hatred of Christianity!

[gnomon]

Look, your continued assertion that because other people do it, or that because the vast majority of xtian people right this very minute aren't doing it, it's ok, is nonsense, but I think we've run this horse over long enough. We won;'t agree because you'll never concede that Christians have blood on their hands.

Funniest statement in the whole thread.

How long is this comedy going to go on.

 

[Quagmire]

Look, your continued assertion that because other people do it, or that because the vast majority of xtian people right this very minute aren't doing it, it's ok, is nonsense, but I think we've run this horse over long enough. We won;'t agree because you'll never concede that Christians have blood on their hands.

Unlike, say, the Vikings *cough*.

 

[not nom]

Unlike, say, the Vikings *cough*.

can you show me a document that is as disgusting as the requerimiento? (look it up, enjoy). not to mention comparable amounts of dead people.

 

[Erebus]

Unlike, say, the Vikings *cough*.

Hey! At least the blood eagle was stylish

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Funniest statement in the whole thread.

How long is this comedy going to go on.

I can go all might, baby. Let me put on mah Barry White CD.

Unlike, say, the Vikings *cough*.

The difference between he and I is that I would never deny this fact. He wishes to hide his side of it

 

[Quagmire]

can you show me a document that is as disgusting as the requerimiento? (look it up, enjoy). not to mention comparable amounts of dead people.

Way to miss the point. And I'll tell you what: as soon as you come up with some statistics about how many people the Vikings slaughtered, we can compare notes.

I can go all might, baby. Let me put on mah Barry White CD.



The difference between he and I is that I would never deny this fact. He wishes to hide his side of it

The difference between you two is that Fallingblood has actually done some research and come to some realistic conclusions. Anyway, I don't see him denying anything, I just see him trying to explain things to you in realistic terms (and good luck with that btw, Fallingblood :yes

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The difference between you two is that Fallingblood has actually done some research and come to some realistic conclusions. Anyway, I don't see him denying anything, I just see him trying to explain things to you in realistic terms (and good luck with that btw, Fallingblood :yes

Pfft, please.
He's denying it left and right. There's nothing realistic in denying history.
The pathology to deny anything negative about Christianity is one of its weaknesses, because the deniers are deluded that everyone believes them.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Fallingblood defends Kirk Cameron. That's just plain wrong

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It wasn't a habit. There is no evidence that it was habit. The only argument that you've made for it being a habit is by calling it a habit, and that is a poor argument.

You fail to actually look at the variety of factors that played a role in any number of persecutions. By ignoring the various factors, you do an injustice to history, and the people who were effected.

You haven't proved your point. You simply have ignored the many other factors that played a part in all of these persecutions. More so, you haven't show that it was out of habit. If it was habit, why didn't more Christians play a part? Why didn't the same Christians continually play a part? Where is the evidence that it was a habit?
When did I say Christians don't have blood on their hands? I never did. However, to make such a foolish, sweeping generalization, as if all Christians have blood on their hands, is simply nothing more than your ignorance and bias showing through.

None of that shows that it was a habit though. And it definitely doesn't show that Christians have a habit of persecuting others, or that all Christians persecute others.

Never once have I made the statement 'all', and while you keep bringing that strawman up to hide the ineffectiveness of your arguments, I'll deny your false statement whenever you repeat it.
I have described very clearly several times now how it is habit; it is logical, your denials are simply weak.
You keep adding false qualifiers which I never state. This is sophomoric at best. And using the word 'minority' is yet another watering-down attempt. There were times in HISTORY when the entire Christian world was given commands by its leaders to persecute. It was completely framed as a religious issue; the Crusades offered a number of indulgences and pardons if one went to fight for the Holy Land and YES while the leadership may have had a NUMBER of reasons [which I NEVER deny no matter how many times you falsely claim I do or infer it] the majority of participants held it in the context of religious activity. Religious activity with profit, sure. But religion was a basic impetus.

And from the Requirimiento Not Nom mentions,

But, if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses; we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him; and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us. And that we have said this to you and made this Requisition, we request the notary here present to give us his testimony in writing, and we ask the rest who are present that they should be witnesses of this Requisition."

The whole document is a religion-based assertion of divine right to rule, and to slaughter or enslave any who refuse to convert. There is no suggestion of allowing nonbelievers to submit to political rule and coexist. This is a cut and dried issue.

[edit] ah, it took me a few to sort this statement out...

The Greek religions also didn't go under ground for thousands of years. So your point is what?

Well, technically they did, in a sense; but that isn't what I said here. What I was saying here is that, Christianity has not undergone some sort of persecution where it had to go into organized underground activity, in thousands of years. While it did in its infancy because it's early leaders were basically stirring up trouble in the Hebrew provinces, and because some Emperors were on slaughter-sprees in Rome itself, since that time there's been nothing like that at all. After it became the state religion it has remained dominant and there has been no comparable episode where it was forced to 'go underground' as we've been talking about.

Unless of course you'd like to discuss inter-Christianity sect persecutions. There have been some of those; do we wish to consider them along with the pagan persecutions?

 

[fallingblood]

Pfft, please.
He's denying it left and right. There's nothing realistic in denying history.
The pathology to deny anything negative about Christianity is one of its weaknesses, because the deniers are deluded that everyone believes them.

I'm not denying anything of the sorts. I don't know how I can make that clearer. I told you that I accept that Christians have persecuted others. I have told you that I accept that some Christians have done horrible things. I accept that the Crusades, Inquisition, etc are true historical events. I'm not denying anything like that.

I'm simply stating that there are a variety of factors that led to those events.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm simply stating that there are a variety of factors that led to those events.

And I cannot be clearer that because there are other factors, that does not negate this factor.

 

[9Westy9]

Why do so many people want to point the finger at Christianity for the evil done in its name instead of pointing the finger at the human heart? Pointing the finger at Christians is the same as pointing the finger at scientists saying look how evil science is pushing these drugs that can destroy lives on every T.V. comercial that pops up.

I don't know people who do the part in bold. People condemn acts done by so called Christians but don't do the same to ALL Christians. Also when people say that Christianity is evil they usually use the OT.

Hey Got a sniffle? try Snif away!
Side effects include headaches,nashau,depression,liver disease,flat tires on car,dog runs away,wars and rumors of wars.........etc.
science is evil and slowly murdering people through chemical processes all in the name of the almighty dollar!
Can't point the finger at science for the evil in mans heart.

Off topic rambling

Those who are full of evil and hatred ,greed will spread it by anymeans necessary and they will use the Bible,science,or any other means necessary to justify themselves.

Something we can all agree on (I'd hope)

Its not the institution of Christianity that is evil

Only the OT

I don't blame scientists or consider them evil even from all of the horror and devestation that has been done through its creations.
Attacking the establishment of Christianity for the evil that man has in his heart is the same as attacking science and medicine for the evil being done in its name.

Attacking the OT though is much different

Christianity is one of the most strongest love based religions I know of and is why it is always pesecuted and in the state of resistance against hatred!

 

[Quagmire]

Pfft, please.
He's denying it left and right.

Don't know where you're getting that.

There's nothing realistic in denying history.
The pathology to deny anything negative about Christianity is one of its weaknesses, because the deniers are deluded that everyone believes them.

This explains why you're seeing a lot of things in Fallingblood's posts that aren't there (if you even read them). You expected to see a denial based on a probably imaginary or at least grossly exaggerated notion of what the standard Christian response is supposed to be.

It would be exactly the same thing if, for instance, someone had it in their head that all followers of the Nordic traditions were white supremists and asked you "So why do you condone the attempted extermination of the Jews?", and you replied with "I don't", and the person debating you came back with "So you're denying the Holocaust happened?"

In other words: you're going to see what you were hoping to see no matter what any Christian posts here.

And I cannot be clearer that because there are other factors, that does not negate this factor.

And in order to keep that episode of elective ignorance going for all it's worth you're going to quote selective segments of other people's posts, out of context, and interpret them in exactly whatever manner best suits the false point you're trying to make.

In other words, no matter what anybody tells you you're going to walk away with exactly the same opinions you started with.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Don't know where you're getting that.

From his posts.

This explains why you're seeing a lot of things in Fallingblood's posts that aren't there (if you even read them). You expected to see a denial based on a probably imaginary or at least grossly exaggerated notion of what the standard Christian response is supposed to be.

Right, because mentioning his own statements means I didn't read them.
There's nothing exaggerated about mentioning periods of faith-spurred violence by Christians. It's just history. And when the responses mimic the historically standard response... oh look, it's a standard response.

It would be exactly the same thing if, for instance, someone had it in their head that all followers of the Nordic traditions were white supremists and asked you "So why do you condone the attempted extermination of the Jews?", and you replied with "I don't", and the person debating you came back with "So you're denying the Holocaust happened?"

No, that analogy is NOTHING like what I am putting forth. But way to hyperbolise in order to get an emotional reaction by hitting on both racism and holocaust deniers in the same post.

And of course, the issue of white supremacy is absent from the history books, and the lore. Something Fallingblood unfortunately doesn't have as an excuse [at least in terms of what I am describing about Christianity; I say this because I can see you making a contextual mistake and thinking I mean white supremacy in xtianity] And a nod to Godwin's law.

In other words: you're going to see what you were hoping to see no matter what any Christian posts here.
And in order to keep that episode of elective ignorance going for all it's worth you're going to quote selective segments of other people's posts, out of context, and interpret them in exactly whatever manner best suits the false point you're trying to make.

:clap

 

[gnomon]

I can go all might, baby. Let me put on mah Barry White CD.

At some point will that include putting forth a cogent argument beyond the likes of "Christians have blood on their hands" and similar nonsense.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

At some point will that include putting forth a cogent argument beyond the likes of "Christians have blood on their hands" and similar nonsense.

Seriously, read what I've written. Do you people simply go around denying that arguments are arguments around here? Feel free to list statements of mine that were not arguments backed by anything.

 

[gnomon]

Seriously, read what I've written. Do you people simply go around denying that arguments are arguments around here? Feel free to list statements of mine that were not arguments backed by anything.

I did read them.

The whole debate between you and fallingblood began when you responded to his comment to kaknelson. You claimed kaknelson provided documentation for his underground Hellenistic tradition. But he didn't.

From there it was nothing more than a ******* contest. No actual attempt to highlight the Christian introduction to Scandinavia and the conflicts there. And that would be the most logical place to start for someone who claims Christians have blood on their hands. Provide the historical evidence.

Just don't say it. I cannot find in any post in this thread by anyone attempting to lay so much responsibility on Christianity anything specific beyond not nom's hilarious attempt by mentioning a letter drawn in one nation at the onset of Spain's colonial adventures which was denounced by Christians as well. In the end that document was simply tossed out and Spain merely went on to do what nations, no matter their majority religion, had done for centuries.

This is amazing because there have been ample opportunities for you to perhaps highlight the very specific treatment of Scandinavian peoples when Christianity moved into northern Europe. It wasn't pretty. You could provide the specifics. Instead we get gems such as this:

I think you are arbitrarily trying to define where the group begins and ends. Understandable. But it's then exactly as I said. Until you start to literally police your own, you're still responsible by association.

This. It's just like the people pointing fingers at the majority of Muslims who are just like everyone else, peaceful and trying to survive in this world, and blaming them for not being more vocal against their stand against Islamist terrorists.

It's the same as pointing to a black man in America and asking them why so many of "their people" commit crimes. It's absurd.

It's called generalizing and it's irrational. Yet, it is dominating every argument in this thread against Christianity.

Well, I find this difficult to address in specific for you, especially since in other posts you have sort of, indirectly denied being a Christian or following some important tenets. Essentially the issue is this: you will not be allowed to have your cake and eat it, too, which is what you really want, as a group. Either cease attempting to make illustrations of how beneficial your faith has been to whomever throughout history, without being willing to accept being held up to the light that your faith has, specifically, been cited by some pretty vile people as the reason for doing something heinous, on an historical scale, as well. If there was any intellectual consistency I really couldn't care less what you thought internally about your faith. It's when you want to laud it in public as if it's without blemish [and deny the ones which are pointed out] that the problems begin.

Here you are basically denigrating fallingblood's personal faith. I saw him do no such thing to anyone here. Pointing this out because, along with the generalizations, it highlights the accusations being hurled rather than the arguments being made.

 

[Quagmire]

From his posts.

Then you must have taken all the words and rearranged the order.

Right, because mentioning his own statements means I didn't read them.

Misquoting the content means you either didn't read them or what he said went over your head. Unless you're intentionally misconstruing what he said. I'm guessing the problem is a combination of the three.

There's nothing exaggerated about mentioning periods of faith-spurred violence by Christians.

Now you're misconstruing my point. Cool. I would hate to feel left out.

It's just history. And when the responses mimic the historically standard response... oh look, it's a standard response.

And when they don't and you say they do....oh look, it's a standard propagandist game.

No, that analogy is NOTHING like what I am putting forth.

It's the same exact thing. If you really think it's inaccurate, show me why, don't just tell me that it is. That's a worthless response.

But way to hyperbolise in order to get an emotional reaction by hitting on both racism and holocaust deniers in the same post.

Sorry if I inadvertently offended any groups you belong to. I was speaking hypothetically (thought I was anyway).

And of course, the issue of white supremacy is absent from the history books, and the lore.

What are you talking about? The bulk of Euro-centric history is a catalog of the repercussions of white supremacy. Are you really saying there's nothing about slavery, the conquest of the Americas, or the Holocaust in the history books? What school did you go to?

Something Fallingblood unfortunately doesn't have as an excuse [at least in terms of what I am describing about Christianity; I say this because I can see you making a contextual mistake and thinking I mean white supremacy in xtianity]

Nah. I generally read people's posts the way they're written. Sorry if that's this hard for you to relate to.

And a nod to Godwin's law.

:clap

The content of the analogy doesn't matter. I was comparing concepts, not people (apparently you aren't any better at understanding wiki articles than are at understanding the posts you respond to in here). If you took it personally, that's all on you. And one would have to wonder why you did, but that's your problem.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I did read them.

The whole debate between you and fallingblood began when you responded to his comment to kaknelson. You claimed kaknelson provided documentation for his underground Hellenistic tradition. But he didn't.

I am not sure that I stated he specifically provided documentation. I did call him a primary source. There has been wrangling that primary sources can only be, it seemed from the demand, written; but that isn't the case. Also, perhaps like you I expected Kak to participate after that; he never did. Ah well, give the guy an attaboy and he departs.... color me surprised.

From there it was nothing more than a ******* contest. No actual attempt to highlight the Christian introduction to Scandinavia and the conflicts there. And that would be the most logical place to start for someone who claims Christians have blood on their hands. Provide the historical evidence.

Frankly a lot of activity here is nothing but a member measuring contest, isn't it? Isn't there an active thread right now noting that nobody 'surrenders' in a religious debate because it's a vast subject area that more or less cannot be concretely proven one way or another? This thread is simply another reflection of this. [edit] In fact, here is that thread, for reference. http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...5-nobody-accepts-defeat-religious-debate.html

As for historical evidence I not only offered a snippet of the Spanish declaration with relevant words in it, but made passing reference to other historical events like the Crusades and Inquisition. How much MORE do I need to do here?

Just don't say it. I cannot find in any post in this thread by anyone attempting to lay so much responsibility on Christianity anything specific beyond not nom's hilarious attempt by mentioning a letter drawn in one nation at the onset of Spain's colonial adventures which was denounced by Christians as well. In the end that document was simply tossed out and Spain merely went on to do what nations, no matter their majority religion, had done for centuries.

Really? If the Spanish doc was later reviled somehow, kindly let us know. Tossed out when and by whom? Was it tossed out before the conquest, during, after?

This is amazing because there have been ample opportunities for you to perhaps highlight the very specific treatment of Scandinavian peoples when Christianity moved into northern Europe. It wasn't pretty.

Given that thusfar a citation and passing references to obvious moments of historical fact, don't seem to be worth it, why would I work harder when it's just going to be ignored anyway? I am still getting the lay of this forum and gaguing how much effort it's worth.
In addition at this point nobody went so far as to bring my own faith into it in specifics. I did not feel the need to begin discussing my own yet, because of this.

This. It's just like the people pointing fingers at the majority of Muslims who are just like everyone else, peaceful and trying to survive in this world, and blaming them for not being more vocal against their stand against Islamist terrorists.

It's the same as pointing to a black man in America and asking them why so many of "their people" commit crimes. It's absurd.

Well, but there are moments when other Muslims spoke out. I've seen or read them. And good forf them. They should do it more. And, my feeling is, and I don't have any numbers to offer because I really don't give that much of a damn to compile freaking lists... but my feeling is that US Christians don't speak out enough against the evangelics who are tattering our society. So I am. It seems either they are afraid to do so for whatever reason, or, simply aren't bothering. Less so than the Muslims, but, the Muslims have a serious shadow to get out from under given the stigma is attached to 9/11. And there ARE a lot of Christians who do support the evangelic idiocies, in very vocal arenas like politics, for example.

It's called generalizing and it's irrational. Yet, it is dominating every argument in this thread against Christianity.

But we ARE generalizing. The OP itself mentions a general idea, doesn't it? Haven't looked at it in a while. And I specify, I am speaking generally.

Here you are basically denigrating fallingblood's personal faith. I saw him do no such thing to anyone here. Pointing this out because, along with the generalizations, it highlights the accusations being hurled rather than the arguments being made.

There are times when I use the word 'you' as in 'you can't have your cake and eat it too', when I am speaking generally. I am not speaking specifically to Fallingblood. He's [AS I SAID RIGHT THERE], often disassociating himself by his own words with mainstream xtianity. I go so far as to SAY THAT. But I also point out he's a bit cagey about it at other times. These are my observations.

My original statement about all this was that if anyone is going to blanket-laud xtianity for the good things, they'll have to accept the bad as well. We BOTH know there are people who simply cannot process such equality about it. That's what it was all about. When Fallingblood began hedging in that manner, that's when I went on a tear. I have been very clear that this was my objection, from the first.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Then you must have taken all the words and rearranged the order.

Misquoting the content means you either didn't read them or what he said went over your head. Unless you're intentionally misconstruing what he said. I'm guessing the problem is a combination of the three.
Now you're misconstruing my point. Cool. I would hate to feel left out.
And when they don't and you say they do....oh look, it's a standard propagandist game.
Sorry if I inadvertently offended any groups you belong to. I was speaking hypothetically (thought I was anyway).

Mere snidery, I won't respond in specific here.

What are you talking about? The bulk of Euro-centric history is a catalog of the repercussions of white supremacy. Are you really saying there's nothing about slavery, the conquest of the Americas, or the Holocaust in the history books? What school did you go to?

How are wars among whites, an issue of white supremacy?? But that's irrelevant, since somehow you misconstrued this statement of mine as if I were NOT speaking of Nordic/Heathen lore, and conquest/exploration. I SPECIFICALLY stuck the word 'lore' in there to make the distinction. Im not sure where your delusion comes from but, there's nothing in Heathen lore promoting a difference based on skin. We didnt really attack anyone on the African coast, but we got thereabouts and traded. Who we DID attack were other Anglos. And we took white slaves. So really, you're totally off the map with this one. How's the egg?

[edit] also, on rereading your statement a few times, I must ask: how is Euro-centric history a catalog of white supremacy when nobody really spoke of 'white supremacy' in any real technical sense until the rise of the German Reich [and even then, it wasn't white supremacy, it was a specific nationalism]? Doesn't there have to be a 'yay we're white!' emphasis for it to be 'supremacy'? Or is it 'white supremacy' simply because the winners were white? I don't know, the more I read this the odder your statement sounds. Is the history of the Asian sub-continent a catalog of 'brown supremacy'??

Nah. I generally read people's posts the way they're written. Sorry if that's this hard for you to relate to.

Please, get over yourself.

The content of the analogy doesn't matter. I was comparing concepts, not people (apparently you aren't any better at understanding wiki articles than are at understanding the posts you respond to in here). If you took it personally, that's all on you. And one would have to wonder why you did, but that's your problem.

Blah blah blah.

It's the same exact thing. If you really think it's inaccurate, show me why, don't just tell me that it is. That's a worthless response.

It's nothing like what I said, because your three statements [from the anecdotal interrogator] were non-linear and nonsensical that's why. The jumps are non sequitur. I frame my progress in relation to what came before it, that's why it isn't.

Like you actually care anyway.