 |
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
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
|
|
quote:
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.
Last edited by Dr Strangelove on 10-04-2002 at 05:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DaShi
|
 |
The Taste of Japan
Sep 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
tandeetaylor
|
|
Las Vegas
Apr 2001
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
I think these things were primarily done by humans. Or do we blame any atheist for Stalin? |
Good point, but we (at least I do, anyway) also blame the philosophy of the person. Why do people do what they do? If religion is a means of changing peoples lives, do we ignore the bad changes its made to some (a lot) of people's lives? Or do we judge a tree for only half it's fruit? Or in this case, about 1/10 ( or less )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dry
|
 |
Brussels
Sep 2000
time: 06:18
|
|
For me christianity - religions more generaly - is only a tool used by rulers to achieve their goals (good or evil).
If you look at the list, you will notice that all those 'crimes' have political or economical reasons. The 'holy' here was just a way to convince gullible people that they were right, they did something 'good'.
But you may extend this to other values than religion. Communism. Communists today, will say the same thing as christians about the fact that True communism was twisted by Stalin or True communism has nothing to do with Stalinism
The enthousiasm of the 'true' communists was used to commit bad things.
This being said, the biggest crime could be then the institution of the church itself (be it catholic, orthodox or whatever). To make this tool official, was the most machiavelical act. It provided the ultimate tool for rulers (Therefore I prefer the protestants or the Jews: they have not the institution).
The french revolution understood that very well and in their will of 'freeing' people, they introduce the idea of secular government.
And btw: this is why many Europeans, which are under the influence of this french revolution spirit, dislike when the US use sentences as 'God bless America' or 'So help me God', because it sounds like a reference to religion or beliefs in a political context.
But you may also extend this abuse of beliefs or values until today.
We could make another poll:
Democracy's greatest crime?
US dropped Napalm on vietnamese villages in the name of democracy and freedom.
We went to Iraqi/koweit in the name of democracy.
Democracy? We attacked the only secular (see above) government of the region in order to 'free' a monarchical/religious country.
We went there to prevent Irak to become the great power of the region, but this could not be said like that, people wouldn't follow, so we found some good, nice, democratic, 'holy' reason for the crusade. And public opinion agreed.
In the name of Democracy and War against Terrorism, Israel is now reducing a people to a status like the american natives (just imagine 5 seconds that Spain (France, UK...) does the same with the Basques independentists (Corsican, IRA,..): reduce the house of the family of terrorists to rubble, forbid ALL basques to travel as long as 1 terrorist remains and allow 'true' spanish to build villages in Basqueland under the protection of the army. Man, in less than 2 days they have hundreds of kills in Madrid. They could then say Those basques are indeed born-terrorists, it is in their culture, Spain has to protect their citizen, get rid of the basques).
And some of you are surprised that some people hate our freedom or democracy?
None of us may say that freedom or democracy is 'bad', but if you see what happened to them or their family 'in the name of freedom or democracy'...
If some of us 'hate' christianity for what was done in the name of it, then it is logical to understand that one may 'hate' freedom for what was done in the name of it.
But, back to the topic:
Wouldn't it be more accurate to speak about the crimes of the Church (institution), instead of Christianity.
Last edited by Dry on 10-04-2002 at 17:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guynemer
My my my. You are one ignorant, spiteful, hateful little man, aren't you? |
No, I just state my opinion based on my observations. Have you even read the Qur'an? I have. And Communism, well I don't have to argue anything supporting what I said. The proof is in the former Soviet Union and present day China.
You've got to understand that I'm not talking about ALL Islam... just the majority of it. Of course there are some sects of positive Islam.
But unfortunately, I can't be here to explain the world's religions to you. My suggestion, go to school and learn about things, then call me ignorant when you know what you are talking about; because you obviously don't
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecowiz Returns
|
 |
Portugal
Aug 2001
time: 05:18
|
|
Having read most of the posts I have to agree with a first point:
The name of the thread is plain wrong. 
That being said, I voted in the banana option for I don't blame Christianity for any of those crimes.
In most cases I don't agree with them because they are much more the result of other contemporay factors than the result of what is said to be, according to the Bible, Jesus' teachings (or the Apostles' for that matter). In fact, as it was pointed out by others here, most (if not all) of the (real) crimes are said to be crimes according to Christian doctrine itself.
However, I do agree with Dry when he points out that, by becoming official religion of the State, Christianism ended up being used for political purposes, allowing many unlawfull intentions to be diguised under his name. I didn't understood, however in what way was Judaism different or many Protestant religions. For instance, I recall that Christ was first trialed and sentenced in the Sinedrium (Jewish religious court); and that the Anglican (I believe the Luteran too) were the State's religions.
I also would like to point that past mistakes should teach us, other than be used to provide some notion of moral superiority over others. In that sense, it would be fruitfull if we were to analyse what are the banners of today's atrocities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Uhhhh...... correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Marx advocate killing certain people, i.e., particularily those of the bourgeiose persuasion? Wasn't Stalin just being fatihful to the dictates of Marx when he brutally subdued ( even to the point of death ) those who offered the slightest resistance to or reservations about the party's programs?
Has Christianity had an overall negative effect on human history? Go take a closer look at Roman and Viking cultures during the first millenium of the common era and tell me that you would like to be living in a world dominated by either one of those cultures. There have been numerous instances of brutality by those who profess Christian faith throughout the ages, but that also goes for just about any other faith and includes those groups which proclaimed an absence of faith as well. In the end Christians set whatever international standard that exists today for justice and compassion.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-04-2002 03:25
Whatever you say, kiddo. EDIT: Ooops, sorry DD, I quoted him again!
|