BigOdin504
section 632
Offline
They were killing each other soon after crossing the Bering land bridge
They were also betraying, robbing, and enslaving each other
Nothing simple about it and I’m certainly not excusing it
Teacher Beheaded in France for Showing Class Picture of Muhammad (2 Viewers)
- Thread starterSt. Widge
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
They were also betraying, robbing, and enslaving each other
Nothing simple about it and I’m certainly not excusing it
Offline
... of course.
Offline
No one should.
Do you think the Catholic church was hijacked for political reasons?
How about the Church of England?
Islam?
They are the political bodies.
You are kidding. Weren't you a priest?
Last edited:
Offline
Ever heard of Pope Gregory IX?
Ever read passages like Ephesians 6:11-16?
Ever heard of the Malleus Maleficarum?
There. Go read.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 1997
- Messages
- 12,595
- Reaction score
- 8,842
Offline
Seriously? Talk about taking something totally out of context to misrepresent it.
Offline
How am I taking this out of context and totally misrepresenting it?
- Moderator
- #67
Offline
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.
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.
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.
- Moderator
- #68
Offline
Anyway, this discussion isn't for this thread, so I'm done and we need to get back to the OP topic.
Offline
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.
The Catholic Church happens to be a really, really, really big stroke.
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.
Offline
The OP's topic involves religion. But if you don't want to talk about religion, that's fine.
- Moderator
- #71
Offline
Yes, it does, but it's not a springboard for talking all things religion.
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?
- Moderator
- #73
Offline
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
- 17,423
- Reaction score
- 5,080
Offline
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.
Offline
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.