Chrisitianities great crimes

[BeBMan]

Best thread ever

Originally posted by MrFun




Roman Catholicism is not a bad religion in of itself. In fact, there is no religion that is bad in of itself.

It depends on the people --- the ones who are within the institutional positions of a religion, that try to either misuse the religion for their own selfish interests, or those who try to advocate humanistic and good use of their religion.

There are good Roman Catholics, and there are bad Roman Catholics.

You see, it's often more complicated than your stereotypical over-generalizations.

Yeah, but who´s interested in that, as long as one can feel morally better with such threads

[Sava]

Originally posted by MrFun




Roman Catholicism is not a bad religion in of itself. In fact, there is no religion that is bad in of itself.

It depends on the people --- the ones who are within the institutional positions of a religion, that try to either misuse the religion for their own selfish interests, or those who try to advocate humanistic and good use of their religion.

There are good Roman Catholics, and there are bad Roman Catholics.

You see, it's often more complicated than your stereotypical over-generalizations.

You are correct, but historically, it is the worst one; in terms of highest death count. I'm not saying the modern religion is bad.

[Heresson]

The destruction of Roman Empire, both western and eastern part

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Sava
One thing that seperates Christianity from say, Communism, or Islam, is that Chrisitianity can have positive interpretations.

My my my. You are one ignorant, spiteful, hateful little man, aren't you?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Apparently, some people, like Urban Ranger have not read my posts on Jesus Christ on this thread.

The same old myth that has been perpetuated for aeons?

If you have some basis in fact for what you wrote about Jesus of Nazareth, I'm all ears. Until then, what makes your position more correct than mine? Please, bald assertions don't work.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Heresson
The destruction of Roman Empire, both western and eastern part

That wouldn't happen to have anything to do with internal strife, external invasions, and imperial overstretch would it? No, of course not, blame it on a few monks.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Sava


You are correct, but historically, it is the worst one; in terms of highest death count. I'm not saying the modern religion is bad.

Would you like to back up that statement? When you do so please do not lump in Nazis depravities since Hitler was more a pagan (Wotanist) than a Catholic. Also do not attribute to he Catholics the devastation of the Amerinds by diseases brought to the new world by europeans as the nature of those diseases was not understood then and could not have been prevented.

You might want to consider the massive waves of death wrought by Genghis Khan. During his reign one third of the population of China, Europe and the Middle East was wiped out. There have been numerous religious wars waged in India and other areas of Asia between Hindus and Buddhists, Muslims and Hindus, Confuscians and Buddhists, Shinto and Buddhists, Animists and Buddhist, Animists and Hindus, Muslims and just about everyone else,and so on. Christian europeans simly have this nasty habit of keeping records of what they do and then disseminating the information. They also have a habit of allowing some dissent, thereby ensuring that critical interpretations of events will be recorded and disseminated.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Heresson
The destruction of Roman Empire, both western and eastern part

Actually the Chinese finished off the western empire. Pressure put on the nomadic peoples living north of china forced some of them to move westward. They gathered together under the Huns and began a multi-generation long march across the Eurasian steppes. Arriving in eastern europe they displaced numerous germanic tribes like the visigoths, ostragoths, vandals, lombards, and burgundians. These tribes swarmed over the borders of the empire, often with the permission of the Imperial government. The Huns followed them, destroying the local political and commercial structure of the empire virtually everywhere norht of Rome. In many areas the germans were left as the strongest force and they took control. The empire no longer had the strength to oppose them, but they had not been completely assimilated so the areas they dominated became estranged from Roman government and culture.

Byzantium was whittled away over a period of 6 centuries by slavic peoples occupying the eastern european parts of the empire, and then by various muslim groups occupying the asian parts. Yes, I know that crusaders once sacked Constantinople, but by that time the empire had regressed to occupying a small area around the Aegean Sea. Ultimately it would have fallen to the Ottomans anyway.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The same old myth that has been perpetuated for aeons?

If you have some basis in fact for what you wrote about Jesus of Nazareth, I'm all ears. Until then, what makes your position more correct than mine? Please, bald assertions don't work.

Not all beliefs have to be based on concrete, scientific evidence.

Watch the History Channel. Sometimes they have theological documentary that show how archaelogy, sociology, and theology have been used in studying the Christian religion in a way that respects that religion.

Or, try finding some books that discuss Christianity's history. You will find both, the good and the bad. But you're only looking at the bad, which distorts your perception of Christianity.

Based on Jesu's life, he was seen as a threat with his revolutionary teachings, and so the Roman authorities felt it was in their best interest to execute him.

Bad mistake -- he became a martyr, and in the most powerful sense, too.

[Monk]

Based on Jesu's life, he was seen as a threat with his revolutionary teachings, and so the Roman authorities felt it was in their best interest to execute him.

Why do you think the Romans thought so? I don't think Jesus ever expressed a wish to rebel or doing anything political

[Adalbertus]

Why do you think the Romans thought so? I don't think Jesus ever expressed a wish to rebel or doing anything political

If you follow the Bible, Pontius Pilate just wanted to get through the affair with as little trouble (for him) as possible. The Jews promised to make more problems when they said that Pilate would not be anymore friend of the emperor (which was an important thing at that time). This was the only thing that mattered. The "official" Romans didn't notice Christianity until Nero's prosecutions, and then only as a Jewish sect. Both, Jews and Christians, refused to adore the emperor as a god.

[chequita guevara]

This is an example of the early anti-Semitism. It wasn't the Romans who wanted Jesus dead, it was those dastardly Jews!

It's extremely unlikely this is the case. Pontius Pilate was rather a bastard. The Romans neabbed him cuz he was causing trouble, and the Romans didn't like trouble. If the Jewish priests wanted Jesus done in, they had the authority and laws to do it themselves.

Instead, as the rift between the Christ sect and mainstream Jews grew wider, this passge was modified to blame the Jews for the death of Christ.

Which is stupid anyways, cuz no cruxifiction, no sacrifice to Death, no eternal life for believers.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"However, Christianity started this abominable practice and belief very early"

How about the Egyptians?

The Egyptians weren't anti-Jewish. They enslaved everyone.

"and that in the last century, a Pope stole a Jewish child that had been baptized in secret"

First, I doubt you'd be able to prove that. Nextly, the pope could have confessed his sin if he did that.

Actually, it was a big scandal at the time.

" it should be remebered that the Inquisition forced 1/3rd of Spain's Jews to convert,"

Again, political motives. Ferdinand and Isabel by this point had already gained large amounts of control over the Catholic Church in Spain. They were uniting Castile and Aragon, two countries historically didn't like each other, so they chose this immoral method to try to unify Spain under the banner of Christianity.

Chrisitanity wasn't just a set of bliefs, it was the ideological underpinning of European feudalism. It was a political system in and of itself. Saying that the inquisition was political is no defence. The Church was a political institution. Furthermore, the Inquisition was in all the Catholic lands. Italians were burned also. And though this antedates the Inquisition, the Hussites were rather brutally repressed as well.

"Nope, it was burned down after the last head of the Library was murdered by a Christian mob in 415"

No, it was the Moslems who did this.

Islam didn't exit yet. Islam wouldn't come into Egypt for another 200-300 years.

"Catholic Inquisitors burned almost the entire written body of the Mayan works as pagan."

Part of Spanish imperial policy, designed to subjugate the native people and destroy their culture.

See earlier point about Inquisition.

Most mainstream churches DO NOT teach that discrimination or hatred is anyway acceptable. Some merely teach that homosexual[ity] sex is a sin.

They mostly tend to fail to practice what they preach.

MrFun, the Monks did save some of the ancient works, but most of what we know of ancient Greek philosophy, science, and literature is due to the Arabs and Turks saving and copying those works.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

MrFun, the Monks did save some of the ancient works, but most of what we know of ancient Greek philosophy, science, and literature is due to the Arabs and Turks saving and copying those works.

I am aware of the historical significance of Arab efforts in preserving the heritage of the ancient Classical world. However, Catholic monasteries played their role as well.

[Dr Strangelove]

The Arabs and Turks perserved the ancient literature of Egypt and Byzantium? Doesn't that imply that Christians had preserved the works up to the time that the Muslim hoards came crashing in? We're to congratulate them for continuing the work that Christians started, yet condemn the Christians for some obtuse reason?

Ah, here's an example of ancient anti-semitism that you can't blame the Christians for: Who exactly was responsible for the diaspora? Was it by chance pagan Romans? Here's another mystery: If Christians were the great medieval era persecutors of Jews that you make them out to be, why then did the descendants of the diaspora come west into europe after being escorted into the Caucasus region by the Romans? For awhile they had their own kingdom ( Kahzars ), but evidently after the pagans reasserted control of the area living in that area got to be a little hot for the Jews and they relocated west. Funny how we've been so often led to believe that pagans were such paragons of political correctness.