Posted on 08/25/2007 4:32:09 PM PDT by freedom44
bump
Asia pinglist ping.
bfl
However, they aren't about to slaughter non-Christians for not converting.
Middle East ping.
Christian fundamentalists believe Christ is the way to eternal salvation, in contrast to muslims who believe that mohammed is the way to heaven on earth, i.e. materialistic religious dominance.
Not any more, but check history. I am sad to say that it has taken place many times. The Conquistadors, the Inquisition, and others are examples. In Britain the Protestants and Catholics fought a bloody war.
As for the Conquistadores and the Inquisition, that those took place in or were related to Iberia should be taken into consideration.
Iberia was for around half a millennium under Muslim (Moorish) rule. Maybe some Islamic culture rubbed off on them?
In the Americas, (this is an actual question) were the natives forcibly 'converted*' to Christianity, or were they forcibly forced to renounce their pagan religions? The two are not the same. Many of the natives practices human sacrifice and bodily mutilation (which some Spaniards apparently still do in Iberia today). Forcing them to end their religion, or at least the violent practices of their religion, was a smart move. Few pagans were killed for being pagans. (Getting on topic: killing dissidents, not encouraging, pressuring, or forcing them to change their views). Their priests were, but the average layman was not.
The United States should have banned Ashura in Iraq, and should promote an Islamic reformation to make Islam less violent and oppressive.
And, this is not an attempt to smear Roman Catholicism, much of the violence you mention was at the hands of Roman Catholics, and particularly southern European Roman Catholics--particularly Iberians who had their--at that time--recent Islamic history. English colonists in the Americas did not engage in wide-scale forceful 'conversion' of the natives. Nor did the Roman Catholic French (take them as being northern, or not Southern, Europeans). Nor did the British forcefully (for this paragraph, 'convert' or be killed) 'convert' the people in their colonies. Even when Hindus in India uprose in part due to British missionaries proselytizing in India with support of the British government, the British government withdrew that support.
Many try to argue that Christianity has a violent history, and Christianity does.
But that violence is usually aimed at the Christians, and not the other way around.
For the very large part, Christianity--through fallible Christians--has had a peaceful history with the many non-Christians across the globe.
*a human creature is not able to convert another human creature. Such conversion is between the individual and God.
P.S. The post was broken up by a bunch of ellipses and probably has a few typos, though the message should still get across.
Although Christians are fallible, they (including Roman Catholics) should look to the Bible as being their highest authority short of God--for when Christ returns to Earth. Higher than the words of any creature human.
The closest thing you might find approaching forcibly converting others (as in convert or be killed) was the call to kill the Canaanites, who were the only people for whom genocide was called.
Besides that case, which was more expansive than just religious--the genocide was to remove Canaanite religion, culture, property, and the people themselves, to give Israel the land--the Bible does not advocate the murder of non-Christians at all.
Christians can do bad things, because they--as with humanity except for Christ--are bad people, but that badness is not because of Christianity. The flaw is with the people, not with the belief system.
You wrote:
“Many of the natives practices human sacrifice and bodily mutilation (which some Spaniards apparently still do in Iberia today).”
What?
btt
There were only a few people actually executed during the inquisitions of the catholic church. Doesn’t mean it was fun for the inquisitees though.
Diplomacy can be expected to dissimulate the truth, but it can never be allowed to raise denial of obvious reality explicitly and pass it off as "statesmanship".
Just saying.
Bad example. All sides were equally irrational during that period and, as for the Conquistadores, anyone who believes that they fought "religious" wars has a tenuous grasp of culture and history.
I am aware that muslims love to cite those same examples...
The key difference with Christian history is that Christendom has had three hundred years since a religious war. The Age of Reason prevailed and religious toleration prevails. Muslims have still not gone through this phase.
....The trouble with True Believers, whatever the faith, is rabid intolerance.....
Hmmm........ where might that nugget of wisdom apply?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.