Teacher Beheaded in France for Showing Class Picture of Muhammad (30 Viewers)

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
32,389
Reaction score
20,150
Age
49
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
No one should.
I don't know. It would depend on the country and the war in question. People don't need religion to justify a war., even if some use religion as a means to an end for their own purposes. Shouldn't the blame be directed at the political leaders? Unfortunately, some (however many is too many) religious leaders have been political leaders as well, and responsible for a lot of carnage. So mutually exclusive depends on the circumstances.

Do you think the Catholic church was hijacked for political reasons?
How about the Church of England?
Islam?

They are the political bodies.
Yes, they all have been to some degree at various points in history. No religion has their hands completely clean, and same can be said of anyone else.

Religions are only political bodies inasmuch as they're involved in politics. There are lots of apolitical religious groups out there. Broad strokes and all that.

You are kidding. Weren't you a priest?
I was a Christian minister. Not a priest. And yeah, I know you'll throw out the Crusades and Christian/Catholic leaders who were responsible for tragic and terrible wars, but that doesn't invalidate the religion. It a stain on people who took the religion in the wrong direction. Not necessarily because of something the religion adheres to. Those people don't get to define what religion means for everyone else.
 

SystemShock

uh yu ka t'ann
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
12,281
Reaction score
17,080
Location
Xibalba
Offline
Shouldn't the blame be directed at the political leaders?
And who were these political leaders? Are the Popes not political leaders? You mean to tell me the Catholic church and the Church of England were not involved in politics, and were just innocent bystanders?

There is a reason for specifying separation of State and Church in various constitutions around the world.

Religions are only political bodies inasmuch as they're involved in politics. There are lots of apolitical religious groups out there. Broad strokes and all that.
The Catholic Church happens to be a really, really, really big stroke.

I was a Christian minister. Not a priest. And yeah, I know you'll throw out the Crusades and Christian/Catholic leaders who were responsible for tragic and terrible wars, but that doesn't invalidate the religion. It a stain on people who took the religion in the wrong direction. Not necessarily because of something the religion adheres to. Those people don't get to define what religion means for everyone else.
Well, unfortunately, those people got to define what religion means for for a good chunk of the world. As for what a religion adheres to, it is all open to interpretation, as apologetics prove.
 

DaveXA

I love the Lord!
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
32,389
Reaction score
20,150
Age
49
Location
Vienna, VA via Lafayette
Offline
We are not talking all things religion, just religion induced violence and its origins.

If you don't want to discuss things, why do you engage?
Didn't say I didn't want to talk about it. I said the discussion was getting away from the topic of the thread. Anyway, let's move on.
 

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
14,287
Reaction score
2,075
Offline
War is a constant through human history, and empires anywhere were not forged without war at any time that history, but to say they were killing each other, is an oversimplification that feels like an excuse.

The other factor is, when the Brits and Spaniards first arrived, they were mostly well received, but then went on to betray, rob, and enslave the people who welcomed them, fed them, and helped them. And these were the Christian nations.
System, let's not try and be too naive, here. The three Meso-American, Pre-Columbian empires didnt become so large, expansive and wealthy without brutally, violently and ruthlessly attacking, defeating, killing and enslaving entire surrounding ethnic indigenous tribes who weren't as technologically advanced, have superior numbers or tactical/logistical advantages. And they did this for centuries while all three enlarged their empires at the expense of less powerful, weaker neighbors.


You're well aware of how prolific of how the Mayans and Aztecs perfor,ed their gruesome human sacrifice rituals by reaching into the chest cavities and removing the hearts or intestines of captured enemy soldiers, villagers, sometimes lower-middle class Mayan/Aztec citizens, show it to the large, amassed crowds and then kick the dead bodies down the pyramids like they were trash. And it's well recorded that occasionally both of these empires performed multi-day orgies of human sacrifices that totalled into the hundreds, maybe thousands of victims. Pre-Columbian historians and cultural historians know of at least two incidents where these industrial-scaled human sacrifices lasted for several days in the 1490s---1494 and 1497 IIRC.

The Mayans, Aztecs, the Incas were imperialists in many respects as their European, old-world counterparts. That fact can't be ignored and in most cases, subjugation, and foreign imperial domination tends to lead to economic and political repression, slavery, stealing and reallocation of natural resources and often brutal, vicious treatments and reprisals of revolts and rebellions from areas in your empires who dont like your presence or your treatment of them, via over-taxing them or disregarding or open contempt for their cultures or beliefs.

And while Montezuma may have openly but cautiously allowed the Spanish explorers to travel into Tenochtitlan bridge, I've read accounts that many of his soldiers, advisers were warning him to not be so naive and welcoming to complete strangers they didnt trust or believe weren't a threat. So, no while some of the Mayan/Aztec emperors may have been openly or friendly towards Spanish or British settlers, traders, or conquerors, by no means was that attitude shared by the complete majority. Many didnt and subsequent events have proven them to be correct in hindsight. Some of these Mayans or Aztecs kings or emperors had never encountered Europeans before and if they'd had a better, more nuanced understanding of who they were and their intentions, they likely not be so welcoming.

You shouldn't confuse them being overly friendly or nice with maybe just being overly cautious and the mindset that if we treat them kindly and make them believe we're not a threat to them, they'll go away and leave us alone. That "kindness" has an ulterior motive and often can be based on an inner, intrinsic collective fear towards an enemy you secretly hate and loath and terrified of because they seem and look different, appear menacing, and outnumber you to the extent they could kill most of you easily.
 

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
14,287
Reaction score
2,075
Offline
Ever heard of Pope Gregory IX?
Ever read passages like Ephesians 6:11-16?
Ever heard of the Malleus Maleficarum?

There. Go read.
Some theologians will tell you that if St. Paul knew how some of his writings and epistles would've been later used, distorted and justified as official papal or church doctrines towards persecutions of Jews, non-Christian Germanic pagans, Old Norse Scandinavian communities who resisted and actively fought against Christian proselytization for centuries until early-mid 11th century, he might have been a bit more cautious before writing it.

Because many of Paul's epistles or commentaries in New Testament, in their original context, met something very different to him and early Christian churches who felt persecuted, ostracized and in constant danger from Roman authorities who viewed them with suspicion. His or those words meant something very different from how later Christian leaders would interpret it and manipulate it for their own ends.

The Malleus Malefaricarum is a product of two German "witch-hunters" as an quack book that supposedly serves as an official how-to guide on discovering, outing, and different forms of executions for witches. You have to keep in mind before the Black Death bubonic plague nearly wiped 1/4th of European populations, global temperatures aligned with "Little Ice Age" or Medieval Cooling Period, from late 13th century to late 19th century, that devastated cities, farms, harvests, commoners beliefs in God's saving grace or the power and integrity of Church to save them or help in any significant way. This period of European history, System, has been called the Crisis of the Late Middle Ages. Earlier on centuries before in 10-13th centuries, Church's policies towards witches or witchcraft, while hostile and nasty, didn't mostly call for inquisitions, burning at the stakes, or mass drownings, most priests found witches to be nuisances and argued they were mostly harmless and had no power to do really anything.

Centuries of declining, detoriating social, economic, and political tensions and radical changes in European domestic power politics saw a fertile environment for drastic extremes that created books like the Malleus Maleficarum. Even during Salem Witch trials, if a man or woman admitted to being a witch, as unjust as it really was and seems to us, they'd be sent away to live in exile far away from any Puritan villages, towns, or cities.
 

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
14,287
Reaction score
2,075
Offline
Respect your extensive knowledge, 2884...but you really need to add a “TL/DR” summary at the end.
Yeah, I hear you, Kiwi. Some of my comments or replies to these complicated, multi-faceted issues do tend to be way overly long and so detailed, it's easy to see how some posters might be concerned their eyes will bleed by the time their done reading. You try to be as informative as possible about certain topics in replies and explaining them can get lengthy at times plus how its worded or comes across can be a burden for some posters to read. I would also like to think I'm getting somewhat better than how I was 3-4 years ago. One lives and learns and improves.

I'd like to think me and you are pretty tight and have gotten very well over the years. God only knows, I remember several years ago IIRC you were living in Moscow or St. Petersburg, Russia, or at least I think it was you. I'd love to visit Middle Earth (New Zealand) one day because they have beautiful, vast, diverse terrain and topography and a determined population that doesn't let tsunamis, devastating earthquakes or mass shootings stop them from moving on with their individual lives and trying to make this world a nicer place.

Good night and good luck in Christchurch, NZ.
 

Dago

Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,052
Reaction score
9,207
Online
Kind of like how centuries of destabilization of Africa and a century of it in the Middle East by Europe and America in the name of ruthless exploitation of their resources has created all of those strict, puritanical Islamist regimes, we even propped up and continue to prop up some of those strict, puritanical Islamist regimes.

So yeah, every religion and culture has a lot of blood on their hands. It's absurd for any religion or culture to think they can sit in a morally superior position to any other religion or culture. What's worse than it being absurd is that it's that very same sense of moral superiority to others that fuels all of the violence from all of the different religions and cultures.
Pretty much how politics in this country has become religion with violence and intolerance being attached
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 3, Guests: 23)



Headlines

Top Bottom