[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

You cannot have it both ways. If you said Canada, and certainly Europe and the United States is a just society despite of Christianity, how can you then say Christian founded countries are inherently more violent when they turned away from their Christian roots?

Sorry--to clarify, I don't think Christian-founded countries are more violent. But just as violent.

$1:

Also, which I'm sure you realize, considering how some people have told you time and time again. This is not a conventional war. Terrorists, like those who committed the acts on 9-11, were not operated by Western standards of nationality, but rather ideology and religious faith. They didn't attack the United States for Saudi Arabia, but for their view of Islam. So of course "Christian-founded" countries will have a higher death toll than Muslim-countries. We're not combating conventional military forces of Muslim countries, we're fighting Muslim terrorists/partisans/freedom fighters, what have you. They don't identify themselves with their nationality but their religious faith.

I don't disagree with much there either, but I don't see where it shows that Christians have less propensity for vioence than Muslims.

$1:

Also, just to add a bit, without wanting to make this into a full discussion on European history...we didn't emerge from the Dark Ages because of the Protestants or free thinkers. The Reformation happened maybe...500 years after the Dark Ages (which, I would say, happened between the fall of Rome and the start of the first Crusades, where Western Europe was in shambles). On top of this, the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages was one of the very few places even conducting scientific research during those times, as well as they're responsible for preserving ancient texts. The Reformation occurred, or more precisely had its roots in the Renaissance, which both had some involvement of the Catholic Church, and happened after the end of the major Crusading eras.

I think we did emerge from the Dark Ages to the Age of Reason because of free thinkers--more specifically it emerged from an era of tyranny where you could be burned alive for being Protestant, or Catholic or reformed episcopalean or whatever because people fought back against tyranny. But I also agree that the Catholic Church was the repository of much knowledge, and I'm not trying to paint the Church as pure evil (actually, I hold ot this day that it was the Church, not Galileo, who was corrrect in their famous struggle). I think it's more along the line of "power corrupts."

$1:

However, I do agree with your last paragraph. I don't want Canada as a Christian theocracy (nor will I, ever). I strongly identify with Canada's Christian roots, but I am able to keep my religious faith and my politics MOSTLY separate (some examples, I disagree with because of my morals, but that's no different if you're against the war due to your ethics and morals). People have every right to practice their faith, or lack of faith freely. I don't care if you're a Jew, Hindu, Protestant, Muslim, Wiccan, Jedi, whatever, as long as you are peaceful with said beliefs, and as long as you don't expect accommodation to every single aspect of your faith in public life.

yes, I think we've been a little generous on the accomodation end myself.

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Talk to 2nd or 3rd generation Canadians of Muslim origin. They're "getting it".

Oh yes, they are. But not the way you think. Too many of the jihadis leaving Canada and the US to go fight in SWA are the 2nd and 3rd generation kids who've decided they want a 'pure' Islam.

Long story short on this topic, eventually the Muslims will detonate a nuke in a major Western city and when they do all of us non-Muslims will need to make a choice about just how important 'diversity' is to us.

I'm only sorry that the majority of Americans and Canadians are utterly incapable of believing the Muslims when they say that they will conquer us or kill us. So that means we'll have to wait for a few million of our fellow citizens to become a diversity of molecules before we collectively accept that the Muslims really mean what they say.

[Zipperfish]

martin14 martin14:

At the same time Zip, I believe the hordes still had to come
through the borders, walls and lines of troops til they got to the cities.

The Romans werent dumb enough to invite them in and then
bend over backwards to accomodate them.

Oh, but they did. The Romans hired a lot of mercenaries, many of whom were barbarians. So not only did they invite them in, but they armed them too! The Romans were fat, lazy and rich (metaphorically). The barbarians were skinny, motivated and hungry.

Curiously though, it was not the barbarians that defeated Rome, in my opinion. The end of the Roman culture was at the hands of those the Romans would kill in the Colloseum in nasty ways just for laughs and who never fought back. The Christians. And in the Colloseum of all history, it was the Christians who ultimately won. A gorgeous irony.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The end of the Roman culture was at the hands of those the Romans would kill in the Colloseum in nasty ways just for laughs and who never fought back. The Christians.

Care to elucidate?

[BartSimpson]

The Christians were originally oppressed by the Romans and then it was the Christians who eventually...and peacefully I might add...conquered Rome itself.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The Christians were originally oppressed by the Romans and then it was the Christians who eventually...and peacefully I might add...conquered Rome itself.

Well, the conquerors of Rome weren't Christians. By the time the Christians became official, Rome had been sacked. And once Christians became the in group, well there went your ball game. No more emulating Jesus, just another way for people to achieve power and riches. And women were shoved out of the way pretty quickly too. Constantine converting is the worst thing that ever happened to the teaching of Jesus. And the official Christians sure didn't remain peaceful and turn the other cheek much, either.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm only sorry that the majority of Americans and Canadians are utterly incapable of believing the Muslims when they say that they will conquer us or kill us.

talk is cheap.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm only sorry that the majority of Americans and Canadians are utterly incapable of believing the Muslims when they say that they will conquer us or kill us.

talk is cheap.

One thing I give the jihadis credit for. They'll say "we will destroy you, pig dog infidels. Insha'Allah." At least is shows a certain humility and open mindedness. Not like say, GWB, who's sure God's on his side.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Ya know, I see a LOT of "blame religion for the world's ills" talk in here. Don't blame religion, blame human nature. IF those acts hadn't been committed in the name of God or (place name of religion here), they would have been committed for some other reason. Greed, ambition, territory, resources. All of these, amoung others, were the REAL reasons for the actions of "religious" groups and leaders. Are you all trying to say that secularists don't suffer from these evils?
Yep, Russia did GREAT as a secular nation didn't it? Or Germany under Hitler, unless one considers the occult to be a religion.
If people don't wanna be religious, that's their choice, just like it is for those that do wish to be religious. But blaming religion for the major woes of the world, past and present, is fallacious at best.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Ya know, I see a LOT of "blame religion for the world's ills" talk in here. Don't blame religion, blame human nature.

Religion is human nature.

But absolutely. Religion is a convenient way to stir up the masses. It's a good excuse - say the Israeli's with their "God gave us this land" as a very overt example. I don't think humans know how to have pure religion, ie spirituality.

[martin14]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Ya know, I see a LOT of "blame religion for the world's ills" talk in here. Don't blame religion, blame human nature.

Religion is human nature.

But absolutely. Religion is a convenient way to stir up the masses. It's a good excuse - say the Israeli's with their "God gave us this land" as a very overt example. I don't think humans know how to have pure religion, ie spirituality.

Nope, religion always mixes with politics, money, fear... and land.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The Christians were originally oppressed by the Romans and then it was the Christians who eventually...and peacefully I might add...conquered Rome itself.

Not even close. Christians weren't persecuted any worse then all the other faiths that represented a threat of change to the established religion. In fact many early christians actively sought martydom demanding that Roman authorities do their duty towards them.

$1:

Some early Christians sought out and welcomed martyrdom. Some Roman authorities tried to avoid Christians because they "goaded, chided, belittled and insulted the crowds until they demanded their death." A group of people presented themselves to the Roman governor of Asia, C. Arrius Antoninus, declared themselves to be Christians, and encouraged the governor to do his duty and put them to death. He executed a few, but as the rest demanded it as well, he responded, exasperated, "You wretches, if you want to die, you have cliffs to leap from and ropes to hang by."[10] Such seeking after death is found in Tertullian's Scorpiace but was certainly not the only view of martyrdom in the Christian church. Both Polycarp and Cyprian, bishops in Smyrna and Carthage respectively, attempted to avoid martyrdom.

$1:

As Christianity began to spread throughout the empire it was initially largely left in peace.

Suetonius mentions passingly that: "[during Nero's reign] Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief"[10] but he doesn't explain for what they were punished.

Tacitus reports that after the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64 some in the population held Nero responsible[11] and that to diffuse blame, he targeted and blamed the Christians[11] (or Chrestians[12]).

The religion of the Christians and Jews was monotheistic in contrast to the polytheism of the Romans.[13] The Romans tended towards syncretism, seeing the same gods under different names in different places of the Empire. This being so, they were generally tolerant and accommodating towards new deities and the religious experiences of other peoples who formed part of their wider Empire.[14] This general tolerance was not extended to religions that were hostile to the state nor any that claimed exclusive rights to religious beliefs and practice.[14]

By its very nature the exclusive faith of the Jews and Christians set them apart from other people, but whereas the former group was in the main contained within a single national, racial grouping—the non-Jewish adherents of the sect being negligible—the latter was active and successful in seeking converts for the new religion and made universal claims not limited to a single geographical area.[14] Whereas the masoretic text, of which the earliest surviving copy dates from the 9th century AD, teaches that "the Gods of the gentiles are nothing", the corresponding passage in the Greek Septuagint, used by the early Christian Church, asserted that "all the gods of the heathens are devils."[15] The same gods whom the Romans believed had protected and blessed their city and its wider empire during the many centuries they had been worshipped were now demonized[16] by the early Christian Church.[17][18]

Whereas the religion of the Jews could theoretically be contained within their own nation state and pose no threat to the wider Empire, it was not so with the early Christian community which was perceived at times to be an intrinsically destabilising influence[19] and threat to the peace of Rome, a religio illicita.[14] The pagans who attributed the misfortunes of Rome and its wider Empire to the rise of Christianity, and who could only see a restoration by a return to the old ways,[14][20] were faced by the Christian Church that had set itself apart from that faith and was unwilling to dilute what it held to be the religion of the "One True God".[21]

After the initial conflicts between the state and the new emerging religion during which early Christians were periodically subject to intense persecution, Gallienus issued an edict of toleration for all religious creeds including Christianity, a re-affirmation of the policy of Alexander Severus.[14]

Historically before he began killing demons with a cross shaped crossbow, Constantine was the first official christian emperor but did that make him much more peaceful and tolerate as many of his forebearers? Nope. In fact towards the end of his reign he became virulently (a portent of christianity to come) anti-other beliefs and his view was: "The God of the Christians was indeed a jealous God who tolerated no other gods beside him. The Church could never acknowledge that she stood on the same plane with other religious bodies, she conquered for herself one domain after another".

To that end his son took after in his fathers footsteps and began the widespread persecution of "paganism" which was largely the original polytheistic faiths of the old empire.

Conversion of Roman society to christianity didn't happen peacefully not did it impart a peaceful society on them.

$1:

In the Christian era the Church came to accept it was the Emperor's duty to use secular power to enforce religious unity, anyone within the church who did not subscribe to Catholic Christianity was seen as a threat to the dominance and purity of "the one true faith" and they saw it as their right to defend this by all means at their disposal.

$1:

After the 3-year-reign of Julian the Apostate (ruled 361 to 363), who revived the Roman state paganism for a short time, the later Christian Roman Emperors sanctioned "attacks on pagan worship".[15] Towards the end of the 4th century Theodosius worked to establish Catholicism as the privileged religion in the Roman Empire."Theodosius was not the man to sympathise with the balancing policy of the Edict of Milan. He set himself steadfastly to the work of establishing Catholicism as the privileged religion of the state, of repressing dissident Christians (heretics) and of enacting explicit legal measures to abolish Paganism in all its phases."[16]

Two hundred and fifty years after Constantine was converted and began the long campaign of official temple destruction and outlawing of non-Christian worship Justinian was still engaged in the war of dissent.

What really happened was that throughout history people persecuted other people for beliefs that differed from theirs and christianity has been no exception. Since its inception they have sought to establish themselves as the one true faith in society and used the violent persecution, displacement, and outright genocidal techniques to achieve this.

[Zipperfish]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Tacitus reports that after the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64 some in the population held Nero responsible[11] and that to diffuse blame, he targeted and blamed the Christians[11] (or Chrestians[12]).

Chrétiens?

[DerbyX]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Tacitus reports that after the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64 some in the population held Nero responsible[11] and that to diffuse blame, he targeted and blamed the Christians[11] (or Chrestians[12]).

Chrétiens?

One more thing the Liberals will be blamed for.

[PimpBrewski123]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Chrétiens?

One more thing the Liberals will be blamed for.

Usually, it's Harper's fault.

But if you insist, sure.