Hatred of Christianity!

[not nom]

I think you just simply do not know what your talking about. You lack in knowledge of the Church, of history of the church and understanding the position of the church today as well as Papal influence. Nor do what you say make any sense.

it makes no sense to you that the church doesn't wield as influence today as it did for the bulk of the last 2000 years? well let's say "churches". I don't mean the RCC only.

and "the position of the church today"? for catholics, or for people in general? I hate to break it to you, but the party is so over, and has been for a while. compared to what has been, this is nothing. it won't be long until facebook has more influence than the catholic church

 

[not nom]

Who said I was trying to dismiss? Wow, so you found a supposed anti-semitic qoute by a Christian. Yeah, show me where I denied such. Show me where I denied there being anti-semitism within Christianity. No, I said not all Christians were anti-semitic. To think such would include thousands of examples of people who were opposite.

and again, who claimed all christians were anti-semitic? I sure didn't.

I'm just saying, nowhere was antisemitism as strong, and nowhere did it get bred as well, as in christianity.

But I guess according to you, Germans who resisted Nazis were Nazis. Abolistionist were still slavery supporters, and Poles who fought against communism were communist.

lol!!! no, according to me germans who resisted the nazis were still germans. *facepalm* just like those antisemitic christians are still christians.

if I say "most antisemitism comes from christianity", that doesn't mean "all christians are antisemites". if you read it that way, that's just to not deal with what I actually say.

 

[not nom]

Blacks? Kurds? Armenians?

well? what writings, what progroms, what time span? 2000 years? really?

until you prove me wrong, I am inclined to respond "nope, nope, and nope. those don't compare." though I'll give you that racism and slavery made up for being late with sheer brutality. I guess that's comparable, but it didn't go on for nearly 2000 years.

 

[Averroes]

Painting a whole group as anti-semitic is just wrong.

Yes, Christians have been anti-semitic in the past. They have made blood-libels and pogroms, etc. Have all Christians been anti-semtic? No. Are Jews still called "Christ killers" as they once were? No. IN fact one would be disregarding Catholic teaching if s/he did so. Read this little qoute from Nostra Aetate;


Declaration on the Relation of the Church to non-christian religions - Nostra Aetate



And of course do not forget when talking of the Papal Authroity, that at times Popes have spoken against persecution of the Jews, yet many Christians did not obey. In fact alot of times the situation was manipulated by so called CHristians for greedy intentions. Internet History Sourcebooks Project

I agree an entire group of people ahouldn't be held accountable. HOWEVER there were millions upon millions of christians who subscribed to what I mentioned. This wasn't like 10 people

 

[Averroes]

well? what writings, what progroms, what time span? 2000 years? really?

until you prove me wrong, I am inclined to respond "nope, nope, and nope. those don't compare." though I'll give you that racism and slavery made up for being late with sheer brutality. I guess that's comparable, but it didn't go on for nearly 2000 years.

Just quoting on the black portion. Doesn't matter the length of the suffering. I have Jewish friends who debate with black students on that. The fact that it happened to a group of humans en masse is a problem.

 

[not nom]

such things don't outweigh each other, I agree. and yes, once racism against the blacks started it was ferocious. it's not like they didn't get blamed to "poison wells", so to speak. however, I asked something and that included time span, so in that context the length of suffering does matter... not because that makes anything better or worse. but long before some white people hated all blacks, some christians hated all jews. that's just what it is.

I'm not blaming modern christians for that. but I know *I* was shocked when I learned of all this (and I'm still in the process of doing so), and I suspect many christians have zero clue about it. certainly looks like it... but sure, I have a narrow view of history haha. I want to blame the general, totally random phenomenon of antisemitism on christianity, when in fact atheists and agnostics had just as much to do with it... that's just

 

[not nom]

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?

because christianity has the idea that jesus wants everybody who doesn't "bend their knee" to him slaughtered in his presence, which is expected to trickle through into practice in some way or other.

and lo and behold, it did.

it's just you then say "those were never of us". some nazis were 100% sure of being good christians in what they did. who are you to claim otherwise? maybe YOU are not the true christian? are you god? can you tell?

 

[gnomon]

find me one group who has been denigrated so deeply, so thouroughly, and for a comparable amount of time, like the jews? they were singled out over and over again.

The Romani.

 

[Averroes]

Like I said before when you put value in length this makes someones suffering worse than someone else. Suffering is suffering be it Jesus himself dying on the cross or Africans at the shores of Virginia

 

[gnomon]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Haven't looked at the OP in a while either.

Any discussion of Christianity inevitably falls into generalizations. Happens every time on the forums.

I agree that the generalizations come from both sides as well. My "beef" is that Christianity, as a term, can hardly be considered a religion or even a cultural entity because there are so many different types of Christian faiths which only share a few common factors to identify them as Christian. Before Constantine even converted and the establishment of The Church shortly thereafter there were already Arians among the Germanic peoples of the Roman Empire, gnostics all over the place and the Coptics in Africa. None of these various Christians, before the establishment of the Church, had anything to do with what happened to the various pre-Christian Hellenic groups.

The spread of Christianity into Europe is more complex than the rosy conversion many Christians may have been taught or the brutal sword point conversions others are taught. Motivations behind the actions of many Christian nations had more to do with politics than religion. Many of the conflicts among a changing European landscape as Christianity became the dominant religion hardly differ in any significant way than the conflicts that predated a Christian Europe.

As far as the requirimiento I'll await not nom's evidence that this legal document lasted more than a couple of decades, was not denounced by individuals such as Bartholome de las Casas and that the law was actually read by Conquistadors to the native inhabitants as opposed to trees and empty huts. That law was nothing more than an attempt by some Spanish legal minds to ease their own moral views towards a campaign that the Spanish government wasn't already engaged in and would continue no matter the view from the Pope or any other institution. That particular law was abolished, it appears, by the mid-16th century. As well, the document says more about the RCC at that time and it's involvement in politics than it says about the millions of different Christians and their personal faith.

 

[not nom]

Like I said before when you put value in length this makes someones suffering worse than someone else.

antisemitism and christianity have been very near each other for a very long time, that was my point. it wasn't about what is worse at all. someone said the holocaust had something to do with white supremacy, and I cleared that up. it was german supremacy, the other whites could go **** themselves in the heart of hearts of the nazis, and the antisemitic aspect of it was born out of centuries of people who considered themselves christian, wether we want to accept them as such or not. I'm not saying that it was just christianity, solely. but to pretend that antisemitism isn't more closely linked to christianity than *anything* is simply wrong from what I can see. it surely is more linked to it than norse mythology. someone said the vikings did evil things, I heard no outcry of "but that was just politics and power, not norse beliefs". so what the **** ever, really ^^

 

[not nom]

As far as the requirimiento I'll await not nom's evidence that this legal document lasted more than a couple of decades, was not denounced by individuals such as Bartholome de las Casas and that the law was actually read by Conquistadors to the native inhabitants as opposed to trees and empty huts.

so? did I claim otherwise? I said it's a disgusting document. it wasn't writting up by some shunned madmen who thought they were christians but the church wouldn't have anything to do with them, now was it.

As well, the document says more about the RCC at that time and it's involvement in politics than it says about the millions of different Christians and their personal faith.

ORLY? again, where did I claim otherwise? you could say that about anything. and I already pointed responded to you indirectly making your strawmen about me, you just keep trucking on eh? someone is sore.

 

[not nom]

The Romani.

good point, I'll respond to that later in a reply to someone else, cheers.

 

[not nom]

christianity has the idea that jesus wants everybody who doesn't "bend their knee" to him slaughtered in his presence

fact, yes?

I know this is talking about the afterlife and that the commandments for living people are rather different. but still.

oh, and I would say the same about islam by the way. religions have these SUPER CRUDE bits in them, which most people don't live by (that is, they do, they leave that to god) but which are always at the ready for some sicko to put into action. they ARE part of canon.

 

[not nom]

for the super slow, for muslims as well as christians: when you make and/or follow a religion which says "you are either totally with us, or against us", you don't get to act surprised when people are against you. if you think god wants that of you, then take it up with god, not with me.

 

[gnomon]

so? did I claim otherwise? I said it's a disgusting document. it wasn't writting up by some shunned madmen who thought they were christians but the church wouldn't have anything to do with them, now was it.



ORLY? again, where did I claim otherwise? you could say that about anything. and I already pointed responded to you indirectly making your strawmen about me, you just keep trucking on eh? someone is sore.

I'll agree with you that it was a disgusting document.

But posting it must bear some relevance and I fail to see the relevance of a document denounced by those, such as las Casas and others, at the time of it's creation with no evidence that it was actually used as a statement against Christianity as a whole.

It does make a statement about the dismal efforts the Spanish Crown and religious leaders in Rome tried to make to justify what was going on in the Americas at the hands of the conquistadors. But it's not a statement against Christianity.

Even when the U.S. supposedly followed Manifest Destiny any resemblance to New Testament theology is just not there. Manifest Destiny was a purely political concept that was essentially meaningless. The drive of a large, powerful nation to grab resources and expand it's territories happens throughout history be it a Christian nation, pagan nation, etc.

These documents do not tell us much about the people. It tells us about the politicians.

 

[not nom]

to me it essentially boils down to "why does chauvinism get hated on".. because it's chauvinism! boo-*******-hoo.

 

[Quagmire]

lolwhut? how obscene in this context to overlook that europe was christian.

When did I "overlook" the fact that Europe was Christian? Again, you missed the point: the point I was making was that the global imperialistic policies that the European powers were operating under through most of the history of the world from the Middle ages on were to a large extent influenced by the self-perception of racial superiority of the Caucasian political powers.

Same thing later on in the United States with the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny.

The perception was that Africans, Semitic, Indian, and all the indigenous people's of the invaded territories were somehow lesser beings and therefore subject to exploitation.

Religion played a role in that too, but the perception of "race" played a much bigger part.

now, as to the holocaust... that was based on antisemitism and german supremacy, not white supremacy.

Are you kidding? what do you think "Aryan" means?

the nazis didn't believe in white supremacy, they SO despised eastern europe and beyond for example (in other words, caucasians?). it was more a (formerly christian, intended to be all nazi) german thing, than an "all whites" thing.

If that's true then why did Hitler initially include the UK and several other Western European nations in his plans to create an Aryan Empire? If you'll read the history you'll see why: for no other reason than that they were (by his perception) fellow Aryans. In other words "pure white".

and guess what was the main breeding ground for antisemitism? christianity.

Not entirely accurate: Christian Europe, ie., Christendom, was the "main breeding ground for antisemitism" yes, Christianity itself no. Christianity is a religion, not a demographic. The demographic that perpetrated the pogroms was predominantly Christian, but the persecution itself usually wasn't conducted for religious reasons.

for nearly two millenia. those yellow stars were nearly 600 years old IIRC, and hitler simple implemented luthers recommendations regarding the jews. the poison spewed towards jews, and how often they got called murderers of god, and how often they were declared to be cursed forever by god, provided the basis for centuries, more than a millenium of ever repeating persecution, of which the holocaust was the tragic zenith.

It wasn't the "basis" for the persecution, it was an excuse. How obvious does that need to be?

to blame it on white supremacy, and then talk about history knowledge? ASTONISHING.

To call historical knowledge "history knowledge" AMUSING.

You're bending over backwards here to separate Nazism from the ideology of white supremacy. This is like trying to separate football from sports. Good luck with that.

 

[not nom]

Even when the U.S. supposedly followed Manifest Destiny any resemblance to New Testament theology is just not there.

so? thing is, people believed that, and considered themselves christians. you now say they aren't really.

give a definition of "christian" then. and then stick to it.

These documents do not tell us much about the people. It tells us about the politicians.

christianity lends itself to that. not just christianity, but that's the topic after all.

do you really, REALLY think it's just random luck that buddhism didn't take that role? that's ******* nuts.

 

[gnomon]

so? thing is, people believed that, and considered themselves christians. you now say they aren't really.

give a definition of "christian" then. and then stick to it.

A christian is one who believes Jesus is the Messiah. What relevance has that regarding official political documents, or even religious documents, in reference to the varied religious beliefs of the populace?

christianity lends itself to that. not just christianity, but that's the topic after all.

do you really, REALLY think it's just random luck that buddhism didn't take that role? that's ******* nuts.

I don't think this has anything to do with anything I said? I'm talking about historical documents drafted by a select few not representing the population at large.