American Arrogance Rooted in Christian Beliefs

[Berzerker]

Ben

Funny thing, I thought this tradition had something to do with the establishment of a state without an official religion, such as the United States

Ahem...our children affirm their allegiance to the state's god each school day.

Yes, it is a good question. However, Christ says, 'before Abraham was, I am'.

"I am" is how God referred to himself in the OT, so that passage needs more context to make your point. Was Jesus referring to the OT god who was known as "I am" or was Jesus talking about himself and only himself? The passage reads "Before Abraham was God" IMO. With all the times Jesus referred to God as his/our father or in other ways like "I am" was before Abraham, you need a mountain of evidence showing Jesus and only Jesus claiming to be God and he just didn't make the claim. He was later given the status of God by Christians, but this status was meant to be symbolic. Jesus became God because he was the son of God who had returned to the father and the trinity, etc... He wasn't suppose to replace God, just join him.

Or maybe not

If your interpretation is correct, why didn't the Jews off Jesus immediately? Think about it, The Jews went after him for allegedly claiming to be the Messiah. Messiah means "King of the Jews". The Romans had outlawed the Jewish monarchy and here was this guy playing Messiah, they went after him to keep power and keep matters somewhat civil with the Romans who would have had a bad reaction to the Jews, and Jewish legal and religious fathers, if they embraced Jesus. Thats why they had to get Pilate involved, so they wouldn't get attacked if the Messiah gained enough of a following to piss off the army occupying their lands.

However, if Jesus was merely claiming to be God, they would have got him for that and that alone...and quick...
That would have been an internal Jewish religious matter to the Romans... Remember, Jesus was mocked as "King of the Jews" when he was crucified, not as "God". Why did so many people at the time react to Jesus as if he was some guy claiming to be the new Jewish king if the whole time he was claiming to be God?

[Jon Miller]

Bezerker

it is well known that there is some argument over Christ's divinity (Even the claim of that divinity)

there were several major splits...

what came to be known as Christianity, however, decided that Christ was God...

since (for the most part) Christianity inhereted monotheism from the Jews, God (the father) and Jesus (the son) are one (and there is also that other being, the Holy Spirit), together they form the trinity

but yes, people were arguing about it 100s of years afterwards, which suggests that all the followers of Chirst were not in agreement upon the matter at the end of His life here on earth

JM

[Jon Miller]

as to why He was ambiguous about it, you answered that yourself..

He wouldn't have been allowed to teach, and Sacrifice, in the fashion He wished to otherwise..

JM

[Heresson]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Hinduism , however , even when at its peak , never sought to go out and conquer other lands or destroy other religions .

Well, perhaps it was not able to

How many major world religions were born in the Christian world , then the Church had power ? That's right , none . They were all destroyed .

If they were never borned, how could they have been destroyed?
Anyway, Christianity borned manicheaism, influenced the birth of Islam, divided into hundreds of denominations including some that may be regarded as different religions.

The conversion of populations from the pagan religions to Christianity has been one of the bloodiest periods of human history .

Generalisation without any proof. Was, until the end of IV century, conversion to Christianity forcible? Even Justinian, officially forcible christianiser of pagans, had pagans in his court. Conversion of Saxons, Polabians was achieved by force, but it was largely done by the way of conquest. The same, though less, applies to Livonia and Prussia.
Sometimes without the use of force missions were impossible - it's not like pagans were always keen on having their religious unity disturbed.
In many other states, like Moravia, Bulgaria, Poland, Ruthenia, Hungary, christianisation was largely an internal choice. It was done by the order of the ruler, but it's not like You had to kill people to achieve that, at least not many and not in Poland.

How many religions were born in Islamic countries ? None .

Well: drusism, yezidism, and mentioned by You sikhism... a lot of denominations on edge of islam, especially shia.

And Hinduism is still intolerant ?

It is today

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


No Aneeshm is asserting that by virtue of Christianity's unwaverinug certainty that theirs is the Truth they are intolerant. His antipathy towards Christianity is based upon their surety of the Truth.

He's right.

My statement is and was simply this EVERY religion is sure that theirs is the way to Truth.

You're wrong.

[Berzerker]

For all the influence of the enlightenment, one has to question why is it in the enlightened countries of europe, that people would flee from them to escape religious persecution, well into the 19th century after the supposed triumph of the 'enlightenment'. Try being a Catholic in Germany, or a Protestant in the Dual monarchy.

Christians persecuting Christians goes back to the Constantine era once their religion became the state religion. Power corrupted the religion early on and only with the advent of the enlightenment have the more war-like Christians started behaving more like other Christians. But your question is flawed in that you claim many people fled religious persecution in enlightened European countries, doesn't sound very enlightened to me. I'm not much of a historian on the enlightenment, but I thought it was more concentrated in America and Scotland/Britain and spread east, and the old feuds between the religious sects were hard to overcome. How many people actually fled mainland Europe to escape religious persecution? Seems like the bulk came from the Isles and the enlightenment ended the wave of emigration.

My ancestors were the pilgrims, they fled England to escape religious persecution. Then about 10 years later the Puritans arrived having left England because they weren't allowed to persecute more. (joke I heard, but we soon saw an exodus of many pilgrims when the Puritans sailed ashore)

was the goal of such expansion religious in nature , and did the religion sanction or encourage the activity ? I would say that the answer to both these questions is "no" .

Christianity doesn't advocate invading other countries, at least not the Christianity defined by Jesus and many of its adherents. There is a problem with your argument I think, Christianity really took off after the Romans had done all that conquering so Christianity really didn't have to spread militarily until the Spanish found gold in the west. The early Christians in North America were not motivated by gold and they got along pretty well with the Indians (oops, you're an Indian )...native Americans.

Hinduism is much more concentrated, its far easier for Hindu elders to reign in more aggressive or otherwise motivated Hindus. Christianity is all over the place and less cohesive and splintered with little or no ability to maintain original standards. The Vatican and Crusades, while motivated in part by a desire to reclaim holy sites, was really about commerce and taxes. It wasn't just Muslims on the holy lands, it was Muslims charging a tax on goodies coming from the Far East. I'll agree that Christianity has a much more violent history, doesn't that suggest Hinduism has a better track record at inhibiting man's violent nature? But you see this difference and conclude Christianity has not only failed to inhibit our violent tendencies, but it actually increases these tendencies. I say it has merely failed to match Hinduism...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Berzerker

The early Christians in North America were not motivated by gold and they got along pretty well with the Indians

[Berzerker]

JM

as to why He was ambiguous about it, you answered that yourself..

He wouldn't have been allowed to teach, and Sacrifice, in the fashion He wished to otherwise..

He wasnt ambiguous about it, he consistently referred to God as another entity. Not once (that I know) did he claim to be God. He was asked why his views on divorce
were different to God's view in the OT, Jesus said God allowed men to divorce easily because God knew their hearts were hard. Men blamed women, God blamed men, and Jesus blamed men and God - not himself, not Jesus. If Jesus was God, why didn't he say "I knew mens' hearts were hard"?

[Berzerker]

Mr Fun, got along pretty well relative to the Spanish in central and South America. Try to read in context

Now, what unprovoked atrocities were committed by early Christians up here? Hell, the Quakers tried to outlaw slavery in Pennsylvania in the 1670-80's light years ahead of most of the world. It wasn't really until the French and Indian War (and its causes) that the relationship between Indians and later colonial Christians fizzled.

oops, edited

[Ted Striker]

Quakers

[Berzerker]

Yup, a bunch of em settled here just in time for the slavery issue to explode on their doorstep as a reult of some political deal made in Washington... Bloody Kansas... Mainly Quaker blood to keep Kansas free...

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Mr Fun, got along pretty well relative to the Spanish in central and South America. Try to read in context

Thats BS

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Your problem then is with the folks who devise the dichotomy between the heartland and the coasts, where no such divide exists.

Wasn't that what you were doing?

At any rate, there is a difference between the coasts and the "heartland," make no mistake. Religious fervor--particularly of the evangelical kind--is certainly more pronounced in the American Midwest and South.

I certainly don't see that Ted was in any way being derisive of these regions based on that comment.

[Mr. Harley]

I can only speak of my adult experience - living in New Jersey, New York, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky. I ordered them via my perception of their tolerance. I agree with Boris and Ted on this one.

[Boris Godunov]

I said nothing about tolerance, only the general population's intensity of religious faith. The heartland's being more enthusiastic religiously doesn't mean the coast goes the opposite and there's some sort of anti-religious hatred. On the contrary, NY and Boston are two of America's greatest religious hubs.