Chrisitianities great crimes

[DinoDoc]

I just thought that I would point out that the Christians didn't burn down the Great Library of Alexandria. This myth was started by Edward Gibbon in his work "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" in which he allowed his anti-Christian prejudice to cloud his better judgement in the conclusions he drew from his sources..

[Guynemer]

Dr. S.--

To be fair, in the later medieval period (say, from the First Crusade on), the Jews were treated pretty horrendously in Europe, at least in comparasion to how they were treated in Muslim-controlled lands. For instance, amongst other charming edicts and commands, Edward I (Longshanks) exiled all Jews from England.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Islam didn't exit yet. Islam wouldn't come into Egypt for another 200-300 years.

It depends on if you believe that the Library survived until the 7th century or not and there is some debate surrounding the date of its destruction. How else do you think that Caliph Omar became such a favorite suspect?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
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?

Even before the destruction of Jerusalem, more Jews lived outside the Holy Land than in it. This was because they were busy making money around the empire as traders. It had little to do with Roman persecution. In fact, the Jews were a special group in the Empire, who weren't required to follow the Empire's religious laws. Many Romans held the Jews is high esteme because of their piety. It's one of the reasons that Christianity spread so fast, you could be "Jewish" without all the really hard rules.

The destruction of Jerusalem was because the Jews kept revolting. It's an awful harsh punishment, but we are talking about the Romans. No one ever really accused them of being nice.

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.

That's not the way things happened. The area that later became the Kingdom of the Kahzars (Chazars, etc.) was never inside the Roman Empire. In the early part of the second millenium, the King of the Kazhars asked each of the three Western religions to send a representative to explain their religion and why it was best. After the Christan, Moslem, and Jewish represetntives spoke, the King chose Judaism, and converted his entire Kingdom. They were then destroyed by the Mongols.

Jews had always been spread thoughout the Roman Empire, so when the Empire fell, they were scattered about the territories now ruled by the German Kingdoms. They didn't move East in great numbers until they were expelled from Western Europe, at which point the enlightened Grand Duchy of Poland-Lithuania welcomed them with open arms.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Dr. S.--

To be fair, in the later medieval period (say, from the First Crusade on), the Jews were treated pretty horrendously in Europe, at least in comparasion to how they were treated in Muslim-controlled lands. For instance, amongst other charming edicts and commands, Edward I (Longshanks) exiled all Jews from England.

Muslim tolerance wasn't always in copious supply. In the conquest of Spain they adopted the age old tactic of eradicating any town or group that offered resistance. In Ethiopia they decimated both Jewish and Christian populations. In the central middle east they were generally fairly tolerant. At the beginning of the 19th century civilians accompanying the British expeditionary forces engaged against Napoleon reported that about half the population of Egypt was Chrisitian and that the majority of inhabitants of Israel and Syria were divided between Christians and Jews. At the end of the Napoleonic wars the Ottoman "governors" in these areas closed off their lands. Fifty years later when the French returned to build the Suez canal Christianity had virtually ceased to exist in Egypt. Israel and Syria once were once again reopened to the west at the end of the Crimean war, by which time both the Jewish and Christian populations had been reduced to tiny minorities. The disturbing thing is that historical records give no hint as to how such a dramatic shift came about.

[MrFun]

Dr. Strangelove, I hate to break this to you, but there are some people on Apolyton who do not appreciate the complexity of historical development of human societies, cultures, nations, and kingdoms.

[Guynemer]

I don't disagree with you, Dr. S. I just wanted the record to reflect that, for quite a number of centuries, in general, Muslim governments were more tolerant of Jews than Christian governments were. Obviously, this is no longer the case.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MrFun
Dr. Strangelove, I hate to break this to you, but there are some people on Apolyton who do not appreciate the complexity of historical development of human societies, cultures, nations, and kingdoms.

Say it ain't so Joe! Say it ain't so!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I don't disagree with you, Dr. S. I just wanted the record to reflect that, for quite a number of centuries, in general, Muslim governments were more tolerant of Jews than Christian governments were. Obviously, this is no longer the case.

But how many of us have much exposure to the history of individual Muslim countries? Even if any of us did many developing countries are presently quite busy whitewashing their ancient histories. Currently if you were to ask an Egyptian historian most would unabashedly profess that slavery didn't exist in the Pharonic empires. The current wisdom in Egyptian historical circles is that those pictograms depicting high status Egyptians swinging the rod with multiple ropes/tails on the end over groups of farm workers or laborers were swatting flies, not whipping slaves. So evidently the Egyptians also invented high school. They must have because they invented the high school prank.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Even if any of us did many developing countries are currently quite busy whitewashing their ancient histories. Currently if you were to ask an Egyptian historian most would unabashedly profess that slavery didn't exist in the Pharonic empires.

Whitewashing a country's history is something that goes on in every country. Heck, the Alan Bloom's of America have been busily engaging in that task for over a decade, in their attack on "Political Correctness."

As for the Pharonic period, it is coming to be seen that a lot of what we thought must have been done by slaves, the archeological evidence is showing wasn't true. Which isn't to say that slavery didn't exist.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Try this experiment, for every crime obviously motivated by racism, see if you can invent another possible motivation, even religion. For example

1) The KKK was not supported by racism as much as it was motivated by an insecurity due to the drastic econimic change which occured in the South after slavery was ended. For more on this, look at how the clan seemed to grow in power during times of economic insecurity. For example in the thirties clan membership was at an all time high. And in the twenties, when the stock market economy and a world war drastically changed the american economy, clan membership was at an all time high.

2) Race based slavery was obviously economical, it provided an easy way to earn a profit. Any brutality towards slaves was thus, never due out of racism as much as it was done to increase productivity by scaring slaves.

3) Racism towards foreign immigrants really stemmed from religious differences.(Many priests found it profitable to stop other religions from spreading their religion by stererotyping an entire ethnic group) And it helped productivity by providing a cheap labor force.(the Chinese for example) Again not racism at fault but economics and a bit of religion.

4) The concentration camps and Nazi movement were obviously not primarily motivated by racism. High ranking Nazi member Albert Spear even said the anti-semitist idea played little part in Nazi discussions. Hence it was more likely to be really motivated by a need to socialize the economy(Jews were often in charge of banks) and get rid of alien religions which had moved into Europe during the Crusades and had slowly been building up hostility. Notice how the Nazis also punished other alien religious groups like the Jehovah Witnesses and alien ideologies like Marxists-communist. To prove this look at how the Nazis were willing to ally with the fascist japanese and italians. As for the camps themselves, the Nazis only planned on moving the Jews until economic hardship faced during the war caused them to take more drastic action to be rid of political prisoners....the prisoners also made a cheap labor force in the camps.

5) South Africa, at first, looks like an obvious case of racist motivated bigotry. But keep in mind that most native to Africa were not Christian and practiced customs European christians found to be offensive. This offense continued via inertia of religious bias. Blacks at this time also made a cheap labor force, this showed the true motivation behind "racist bogotry": economics. To prove this: look at how the rich and more "Western" japanese were treated as honorary whites.

Economics, religion, politics and human nature can all be easily made to sound like what were "really" responsible for obvious racist acts.

And these points can likewise be made:

1) Most racists are good people. They don't beat people up. They pay taxes, raise kids, promote education, live and let live. Even those who support segragation laws say "Separate but equal".

2) Racist groups have done some nice things. Nazis for example helped many of their poor. Many people who worked in charities were racist. Even many great scientists were racist. The racists who thus get violent can be seen as renegades. Racism does not necessarily prmote violence, that comes from other things. After which people try to use racismto legitamatize their stances.

3) Non-racists have done things just as bad as racists. Hence, since it appears bad things will continue whether there is racism or not, getting rid of racism is not the answer.

Many examples of outright racism can now be easily explained away and many poor arguments like the three above now utilized. Try it, its not as hard as it sounds. All you have to do is be willing to substitute what is the cause at face value for what is the cause given unwarranted speculation, and take advantage of the fact that no racist commits a racist crime for purely racist reasons. Apply such reasoning and you should be able to explain away any example proving that racism is bad.


You can also say that by racism you do not mean that all racists are literally different, but that the idea reflects a difference in the person's soul. Something compatible with modern biology.

52

[MrFun]

Dashi, I do not think anyone here defending Christianity deny that there were Christian leaders and Christian groups who have commited crimes against humanity.

So you're really not proving anything.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Not all beliefs have to be based on concrete, scientific evidence.

I agree. The problem with this is some people still insist on calling something factual when it doesn't have much historical evidence.

Originally posted by MrFun
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.

What does that have to do with my orginal post? My contention was there is no basis to assert what the core beliefs of Christianity are, given that the bible itself is such a mess of contradictions.

Originally posted by MrFun
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.

How do you know I was only looking at the bad side? [Careful with those fallacies, big fella ]

A couple of overall observations:

1. You cannot seperate Christianity and the Church. Historically, they were so intertwined that any such attempts can only be construed as whitewashing Christianity.

2. Overall, Christianity/Church did more bad things than good.

Originally posted by MrFun
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.

According to whom? Where is the evidence for this? I have contented this before. Jesus of Nazareth posted no threat to Roman rule. He did not advocate active or passive resistence to the Romans; why should they care?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

A couple of overall observations:

1. You cannot seperate Christianity and the Church. Historically, they were so intertwined that any such attempts can only be construed as whitewashing Christianity.

2. Overall, Christianity/Church did more bad things than good.

According to whom? Where is the evidence for this? I have contented this before. Jesus of Nazareth posted no threat to Roman rule. He did not advocate active or passive resistence to the Romans; why should they care?

Your Point #1:

I disagree. I have renounced the Church for its institutional abuse and misuse of religion, but not some of the fundamental beliefs that have roots in Christianity. Now, I am a non-conformist Christian, since I still have my own beliefs on Jesus Christ.

Your Point #2:

The Romans decided to act on the demands of some of the Jewish leaders in having Jesus executed. The Jewish leaders who hated Jesus saw him as a threat to their established religion.

The Romans were happy to give in the demands for the execution of Jesus, because some Roman leaders saw Jesus as a danger to the Middle East provinces under Roman rule. The reason: Jesus advocated a new monotheistic religion that could undermine Roman Empire's hold over the Middle East and other regions if the new religion spread.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
1. You cannot seperate Christianity and the Church. Historically, they were so intertwined that any such attempts can only be construed as whitewashing Christianity.

I disagree.

1) Christianity is not the Catholic Church. Ask Martin Luther if you don't believe me on that point.

2) Christianity is a religion first and foremost. If a Church fails to act in concert with that religion's ideals, I fail to see how I can not seperate it's actions from the religion.

3) If you really do believe that, I have to ask how you can subscribe to an idea (Communism) that cost the lives of 65 million civilians in China alone. Seems like a ghastly ideaology to me.

2. Overall, Christianity/Church did more bad things than good.

Prove that the world would have been better off if Christianity had never existed.