|
Post by clusium on Jan 28, 2024 1:23:46 GMT
Christ's death was considerably less agonizing that the deaths many of those who were tortured and executed in his name, by his eager followers, had to endure. There have also been eager followers Of the Christ that endured Torture & Death for His (Christ's) Holy Name too. throughout this past 2 millennia. In fact, Christianity is the most persecuted religion, worldwide, today. Persecution Of Christians In The 21'St Century
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 28, 2024 1:27:09 GMT
when was it that brutes would not use religious grounds in order to destruct, maim, murder ? Indeed. Such behaviour can be traced back to Abraham and Isaac, (Gen 22) arguably an early example of religious extremism, when based on the conviction that a purported god demanded it, a father prepared to kill his son. Good job an angel stopped him eh? In terms of child sacrifice, Isaac is actually one of the lucky ones (actually, he could very well be THEE lucky one). Back in the ancient world, it was very common for parents to sacrifice their own children to their respective gods, to either a)thank said deity for child ( ), b)in the hopes of some harvest, end some drought, etc.
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 28, 2024 10:49:03 GMT
Erm... There is a strict difference between ”use” and ”good use” imho.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 28, 2024 13:16:43 GMT
Christ's death was considerably less agonizing that the deaths many of those who were tortured and executed in his name, by his eager followers, had to endure. Provided there were antagonizing christ in some kind of contest, which is doubtfull. They are entitled respect for they are dead and can’t reply for themselves, not because they suffered. Not every Christian is a sadist at heart. Sadistic types are sadistic. And yes, history of religion notes that some christians behaved the way you note. Short version, when was it that brutes would not use religious grounds in order to destruct, maim, murder ?
Short answer: Never. But it still ill becomes those who were allegedly following the tenets of an alleged religion of peace and tolerance (viz. what we are endlessly told Jesus stood for) to destroy, maim and murder. And it ill behoves Christians further to frequently be far less than truthful or honest in admission of their sect's historically pretty dubious active interpretation of those tenets. Second short answer: Apparently, historically, many Christians tend toward brutishness. Or they find Christianity a handy prop to practice their brutishness behind.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 28, 2024 13:22:04 GMT
It is true that the Christian can only be a freethinker within a certain proscribed range (or face expulsion by the Christian community if he goes beyond it and makes this known), which necessarily means he cannot be a freethinker in the fullest sense of the word. I think that presumes though that a freethinker couldn't come to the conclusion (perhaps the false conclusion, but freethinking doesn't necessitate accuracy) that Christianity is true. Or that Christians will not question their beliefs. Unfortunately, organized Christianity tends to expel those who question those beliefs audibly within the sanctums of the religion, which has a noticeably cooling effect on some who might otherwise bring some needed critical thought into it. And of course, freethought alone doesn't insure accuracy. One can follow strict scientific method in a particular application and still come up with a wrong result. However I do feel the ideals of freethinking do give a far greater canvas for the development of those critical thinking skills that can help provide the more accurate answers than the confines of mystic religious doctrine can or ever will.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 28, 2024 13:28:05 GMT
Christ's death was considerably less agonizing that the deaths many of those who were tortured and executed in his name, by his eager followers, had to endure. There have also been eager followers Of the Christ that endured Torture & Death for His (Christ's) Holy Name too. throughout this past 2 millennia. In fact, Christianity is the most persecuted religion, worldwide, today. Persecution Of Christians In The 21'St CenturyMost of those historically undergoing such martyrdom were enduring it at the hands of those who also identified as Christian. And as to the latter clause: Does it ever occur to the Christian that there may be viable historical precedent for the fact that Christianity is not a particularly well-thought of religion in much of the non-Christian world today? Could Christianity's known track record of incursion into the non-Christian world (often in a fairly violent, intrusive and not-loving manner) provide some degree of rationale for this reaction among followers of other belief systems?
|
|
transfuged
Sophomore
@transfuged
Posts: 961
Likes: 310
|
Post by transfuged on Jan 28, 2024 16:56:05 GMT
yesterday at 12:54pm amyghost said :
Christ still Had to Endure an Extremely Agonizing sort of Death, let's not forget.
Christ's death was considerably less agonizing that the deaths many of those who were tortured and executed in his name, by his eager followers, had to endure.
Provided there were antagonizing Christ in some kind of contest, which is doubtful. They are entitled respect for they are dead and can’t reply for themselves, not because they suffered. Not every Christian is a sadist at heart. Sadistic types are sadistic.
And yes, history of religion notes that some Christians behaved the way you note.
Short version, when was it that brutes would not use religious grounds in order to destruct, maim, murder ?
Last Edit: yesterday at 1:36pm by transfuged
[Film flaneur]timestamp="1706359968" source="/post/6049865/thread"][quote source="/post/6049863/thread" timestamp="1706358782" [abridgement of original post ]
"transfuged "]when was it that brutes would not use religious grounds in order to destruct, maim, murder ? Indeed. Such behaviour can be traced back to Abraham and Isaac, (Gen 22) arguably an early example of religious extremism, when based on the conviction that a purported god demanded it, a father prepared to kill his son. Good job an angel stopped him eh?
[ /quote]by transfuged yesterday at 2:46pm 🎥🎬🎦🎞flâneur, Actually why imaginary beings would not be good at doing their job ?! ! ?
From there, the son went physically un harmed, how do you link your reply with my question which emphasizes on brevity and refers to brutal deeds, actual ones ?
Aren’t you again caught at attempting to dilate debates, sweet honey, mmh ?
Hugs, plenty.
[Addition : as noted above, the point is ”people executed in the name of Christ”.Let’s not dilate and focus : Isaac is not to be executed in the name of Christ. Event Takes place before Jesus was born. Canaanites are executed in the name of the god of the first part of the Bible. That takes place also before Jesus was born. My question enlarges the scope to what religion is put through by brutal and criminal behaviour, not only Jesus name but refers to history. History deals with documents, fiction is not a document. ISAAC parabola is just what it is. A story. Basically, it notes that in the second part of the Bible, the god of Christians commands humility, obedience and caring of other’s lives. Unsure about the humility and obedience, but I guess one 10th command used to forbid murder. So it’s a repeat. And what is forbidden is murdering one’s son, bottom line. It’s not that bad, wrong, insane an instruction Imho. One can object Isaac should hate his father and god for using him as an animal, only he can’t. That is forbidden by the tenth commands. One must respect one’s parents and obey god. There is no option. Isaac only option is to get another faith or to stick it up his ear and Kiss Isaac’s feet and maybe sacrifice à goat or two to god who let him live through an imaginary protective and successful being. That’s it. And as it is à parabola, Film flâneur, one can’t, actually can’t object the imaginary creature is hapless in the real world as you did because it is not a document. It is Litterature.
As it comes to religious facts, a binding document would be authored by à religious power only. The ”fathers ” had no binding power. E.g.In the time the second part of the Bible was written, in the area it was written, the binding power belonged to à colonist body. In contemporary times, where Islam is a state religion, the binding powers is supposed to belong to Imams or the community. Actually, in a world where liberalism is raging, powers lies with soldiers assigned with enforcing order and getting rich doing so, so reportedly said roman emperor Severe. Who stood accused with persecuting Christians in some history books and not persecuting them in some other history books. Imho public order is far from justice or even equity. You have equipment and opportunity to use it film flâneur. What are you planning to achieve with it, justice, order, disorder ? Imho disorder is far from justice too. Granted it can be pleasurable to you. If that is your goal, it’s not wrong. But you are getting it at a load of expenses. Our own pleasure, mostly. Can you see that ?
If you can't, have we done anything wrong ?]
Post by transfuged on yesterday at 3:31pm<o:p></o:p></abbr> 🎥🎬🎦🎞 flâneur
Abraham is a being from their same book as the imaginary being. How are is deeds possibly linked with history I referred too above ?
Not all imaginary beings.
Hercules is said to be a hero but his deeds never account’ bottom line. When he brings à monster to his coz’ who ordered him to get it, all his might, success amount to nothing. His coz is ridicule and Alcee’s deed are in the past, un changed. His children are dead. He killed them on a goddess will.
Prior (?) Story to this one : Enkidu and Gilgamesh. Same conclusion. Enki remains dead, Gilgamesh heart is still broken, and the human people who asked for Enki are ridiculed. US.
Prior story, Egypt.
What about looking at the future instead of the past, going forward instead of not going forward ?
Truly,
Edition forgot the love, love.
Gotta go
Mouhah
Before he becomes Hera’s champion (”kleos” ~ glory) in atonement for murdering his sons, Alcee is a bastard son of Zeus and a mortal. As usual with family crime, the guilty one is punished with insanity. Being born a bastard, baby Alcee is a family criminal. (No one is going to kick Zeus’s ass, obviously) Typically, he is sent insanity. In a fit, he kills his children. That is a crime against religion. In order to be purified , he becomes his cousin attendant, who sends him on many errands, full of danger and rewarded with glory. Especially pointless too. Point less, but successful. Hercules is à typical Dorian popular hero. That story is not that different in its conclusion than Isaac’s son story. Obey god, do not murder, be humble. Gilgamesh is an arrogant King who despairs his subjects. He rapes their daughters and their sons are killed in war for the sake of his own name. He is born a semi god. Gods hear the people’s plea and send Gilgamesh a nature born antagonist: Enkidu. But the people will have to stick it over their ear, for Enki and the King become friends, at their own expense because they cause damage fighting before getting buddies. The notion of the afterlife which is at work is gloomy. Nothing better in the afterlife than in actual life. The departed are depicted as shadows of what they were and that is all. Complaining against a semi god is punished with ridicule. And Gilgamesh and Enki are punished too. Enki dies. Gilgamesh heart is broken. That’s it. Enkidu was a formidable contestant. And united, they were successful in defeating many antagonists. But … bottom line, zero amount. Gods can send champions but people are people and they must comply an shut up. So must semi godly kings and nature born heroes. Most of the symbols are identical as Egyptian myths’s. (Parabolas)
With love, T
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 29, 2024 1:52:41 GMT
There have also been eager followers Of the Christ that endured Torture & Death for His (Christ's) Holy Name too. throughout this past 2 millennia. In fact, Christianity is the most persecuted religion, worldwide, today. Persecution Of Christians In The 21'St CenturyMost of those historically undergoing such martyrdom were enduring it at the hands of those who also identified as Christian. And as to the latter clause: Does it ever occur to the Christian that there may be viable historical precedent for the fact that Christianity is not a particularly well-thought of religion in much of the non-Christian world today? Could Christianity's known track record of incursion into the non-Christian world (often in a fairly violent, intrusive and not-loving manner) provide some degree of rationale for this reaction among followers of other belief systems? Christianity was actually usually spread through missionary work more often, rather than the sword, historically. Usually, when it was spread by the sword, it was usually due to other factors, such as greed, etc. Eg: When it was discovered that there was gold, silver, diamonds, etc., in the New World, Europeans who originally came to preach the Gospel, had instead decided to raid the Natives in Latin America (such as the Mayans, the Aztecs, etc), instead.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2024 13:02:53 GMT
yesterday at 12:54pm amyghost said :
Christ still Had to Endure an Extremely Agonizing sort of Death, let's not forget.
Christ's death was considerably less agonizing that the deaths many of those who were tortured and executed in his name, by his eager followers, had to endure.
Provided there were antagonizing Christ in some kind of contest, which is doubtful. They are entitled respect for they are dead and can’t reply for themselves, not because they suffered. Not every Christian is a sadist at heart. Sadistic types are sadistic.
And yes, history of religion notes that some Christians behaved the way you note.
Short version, when was it that brutes would not use religious grounds in order to destruct, maim, murder ?
Last Edit: yesterday at 1:36pm by transfuged
[Film flaneur]timestamp="1706359968" source="/post/6049865/thread"][quote source="/post/6049863/thread" timestamp="1706358782" [abridgement of original post ]
"transfuged "]when was it that brutes would not use religious grounds in order to destruct, maim, murder ? Indeed. Such behaviour can be traced back to Abraham and Isaac, (Gen 22) arguably an early example of religious extremism, when based on the conviction that a purported god demanded it, a father prepared to kill his son. Good job an angel stopped him eh?
[ /quote]by transfuged yesterday at 2:46pm 🎥🎬🎦🎞flâneur, Actually why imaginary beings would not be good at doing their job ?! ! ?
From there, the son went physically un harmed, how do you link your reply with my question which emphasizes on brevity and refers to brutal deeds, actual ones ?
Aren’t you again caught at attempting to dilate debates, sweet honey, mmh ?
Hugs, plenty.
[Addition : as noted above, the point is ”people executed in the name of Christ”.Let’s not dilate and focus : Isaac is not to be executed in the name of Christ. Event Takes place before Jesus was born. Canaanites are executed in the name of the god of the first part of the Bible. That takes place also before Jesus was born. My question enlarges the scope to what religion is put through by brutal and criminal behaviour, not only Jesus name but refers to history. History deals with documents, fiction is not a document. ISAAC parabola is just what it is. A story. Basically, it notes that in the second part of the Bible, the god of Christians commands humility, obedience and caring of other’s lives. Unsure about the humility and obedience, but I guess one 10th command used to forbid murder. So it’s a repeat. And what is forbidden is murdering one’s son, bottom line. It’s not that bad, wrong, insane an instruction Imho. One can object Isaac should hate his father and god for using him as an animal, only he can’t. That is forbidden by the tenth commands. One must respect one’s parents and obey god. There is no option. Isaac only option is to get another faith or to stick it up his ear and Kiss Isaac’s feet and maybe sacrifice à goat or two to god who let him live through an imaginary protective and successful being. That’s it. And as it is à parabola, Film flâneur, one can’t, actually can’t object the imaginary creature is hapless in the real world as you did because it is not a document. It is Litterature.
As it comes to religious facts, a binding document would be authored by à religious power only. The ”fathers ” had no binding power. E.g.In the time the second part of the Bible was written, in the area it was written, the binding power belonged to à colonist body. In contemporary times, where Islam is a state religion, the binding powers is supposed to belong to Imams or the community. Actually, in a world where liberalism is raging, powers lies with soldiers assigned with enforcing order and getting rich doing so, so reportedly said roman emperor Severe. Who stood accused with persecuting Christians in some history books and not persecuting them in some other history books. Imho public order is far from justice or even equity. You have equipment and opportunity to use it film flâneur. What are you planning to achieve with it, justice, order, disorder ? Imho disorder is far from justice too. Granted it can be pleasurable to you. If that is your goal, it’s not wrong. But you are getting it at a load of expenses. Our own pleasure, mostly. Can you see that ?
If you can't, have we done anything wrong ?]
Post by transfuged on yesterday at 3:31pm<o:p></o:p></abbr> 🎥🎬🎦🎞 flâneur
Abraham is a being from their same book as the imaginary being. How are is deeds possibly linked with history I referred too above ?
Not all imaginary beings.
Hercules is said to be a hero but his deeds never account’ bottom line. When he brings à monster to his coz’ who ordered him to get it, all his might, success amount to nothing. His coz is ridicule and Alcee’s deed are in the past, un changed. His children are dead. He killed them on a goddess will.
Prior (?) Story to this one : Enkidu and Gilgamesh. Same conclusion. Enki remains dead, Gilgamesh heart is still broken, and the human people who asked for Enki are ridiculed. US.
Prior story, Egypt.
What about looking at the future instead of the past, going forward instead of not going forward ?
Truly,
Edition forgot the love, love.
Gotta go
Mouhah
Before he becomes Hera’s champion (”kleos” ~ glory) in atonement for murdering his sons, Alcee is a bastard son of Zeus and a mortal. As usual with family crime, the guilty one is punished with insanity. Being born a bastard, baby Alcee is a family criminal. (No one is going to kick Zeus’s ass, obviously) Typically, he is sent insanity. In a fit, he kills his children. That is a crime against religion. In order to be purified , he becomes his cousin attendant, who sends him on many errands, full of danger and rewarded with glory. Especially pointless too. Point less, but successful. Hercules is à typical Dorian popular hero. That story is not that different in its conclusion than Isaac’s son story. Obey god, do not murder, be humble. Gilgamesh is an arrogant King who despairs his subjects. He rapes their daughters and their sons are killed in war for the sake of his own name. He is born a semi god. Gods hear the people’s plea and send Gilgamesh a nature born antagonist: Enkidu. But the people will have to stick it over their ear, for Enki and the King become friends, at their own expense because they cause damage fighting before getting buddies. The notion of the afterlife which is at work is gloomy. Nothing better in the afterlife than in actual life. The departed are depicted as shadows of what they were and that is all. Complaining against a semi god is punished with ridicule. And Gilgamesh and Enki are punished too. Enki dies. Gilgamesh heart is broken. That’s it. Enkidu was a formidable contestant. And united, they were successful in defeating many antagonists. But … bottom line, zero amount. Gods can send champions but people are people and they must comply an shut up. So must semi godly kings and nature born heroes. Most of the symbols are identical as Egyptian myths’s. (Parabolas)
With love, T Unfortunately to reply to your post I would have make sense of exactly what you were saying and why it was relevant, and now also it seems spend a good deal of time de-formating your badly arranged message in order to easily read it and quote. I just can't be bothered and I am a patient guy.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 29, 2024 13:39:53 GMT
Most of those historically undergoing such martyrdom were enduring it at the hands of those who also identified as Christian. And as to the latter clause: Does it ever occur to the Christian that there may be viable historical precedent for the fact that Christianity is not a particularly well-thought of religion in much of the non-Christian world today? Could Christianity's known track record of incursion into the non-Christian world (often in a fairly violent, intrusive and not-loving manner) provide some degree of rationale for this reaction among followers of other belief systems? Christianity was actually usually spread through missionary work more often, rather than the sword, historically. Usually, when it was spread by the sword, it was usually due to other factors, such as greed, etc. Eg: When it was discovered that there was gold, silver, diamonds, etc., in the New World, Europeans who originally came to preach the Gospel, had instead decided to raid the Natives in Latin America (such as the Mayans, the Aztecs, etc), instead. Christian missionary work was often as unkind, intrusive, and disrespectful of indigenous cultures (as well as the physical bodies of those peoples) as any incursion by the sword. It often remains so today, despite the strenuous efforts of the churches to deny that this is so. Here is just one article on the destructive aspects of foreign missionary work in current-day India. And this article is from a Christian-based source! www.9marks.org/article/a-plea-for-gospel-sanity-in-missions/
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 29, 2024 13:45:01 GMT
yesterday at 12:54pm amyghost said :
Christ still Had to Endure an Extremely Agonizing sort of Death, let's not forget.
Christ's death was considerably less agonizing that the deaths many of those who were tortured and executed in his name, by his eager followers, had to endure.
Provided there were antagonizing Christ in some kind of contest, which is doubtful. They are entitled respect for they are dead and can’t reply for themselves, not because they suffered. Not every Christian is a sadist at heart. Sadistic types are sadistic.
And yes, history of religion notes that some Christians behaved the way you note.
Short version, when was it that brutes would not use religious grounds in order to destruct, maim, murder ?
Last Edit: yesterday at 1:36pm by transfuged
[Film flaneur]timestamp="1706359968" source="/post/6049865/thread"][quote source="/post/6049863/thread" timestamp="1706358782" [abridgement of original post ]
"transfuged "]when was it that brutes would not use religious grounds in order to destruct, maim, murder ? Indeed. Such behaviour can be traced back to Abraham and Isaac, (Gen 22) arguably an early example of religious extremism, when based on the conviction that a purported god demanded it, a father prepared to kill his son. Good job an angel stopped him eh?
[ /quote]by transfuged yesterday at 2:46pm 🎥🎬🎦🎞flâneur, Actually why imaginary beings would not be good at doing their job ?! ! ?
From there, the son went physically un harmed, how do you link your reply with my question which emphasizes on brevity and refers to brutal deeds, actual ones ?
Aren’t you again caught at attempting to dilate debates, sweet honey, mmh ?
Hugs, plenty.
[Addition : as noted above, the point is ”people executed in the name of Christ”.Let’s not dilate and focus : Isaac is not to be executed in the name of Christ. Event Takes place before Jesus was born. Canaanites are executed in the name of the god of the first part of the Bible. That takes place also before Jesus was born. My question enlarges the scope to what religion is put through by brutal and criminal behaviour, not only Jesus name but refers to history. History deals with documents, fiction is not a document. ISAAC parabola is just what it is. A story. Basically, it notes that in the second part of the Bible, the god of Christians commands humility, obedience and caring of other’s lives. Unsure about the humility and obedience, but I guess one 10th command used to forbid murder. So it’s a repeat. And what is forbidden is murdering one’s son, bottom line. It’s not that bad, wrong, insane an instruction Imho. One can object Isaac should hate his father and god for using him as an animal, only he can’t. That is forbidden by the tenth commands. One must respect one’s parents and obey god. There is no option. Isaac only option is to get another faith or to stick it up his ear and Kiss Isaac’s feet and maybe sacrifice à goat or two to god who let him live through an imaginary protective and successful being. That’s it. And as it is à parabola, Film flâneur, one can’t, actually can’t object the imaginary creature is hapless in the real world as you did because it is not a document. It is Litterature.
As it comes to religious facts, a binding document would be authored by à religious power only. The ”fathers ” had no binding power. E.g.In the time the second part of the Bible was written, in the area it was written, the binding power belonged to à colonist body. In contemporary times, where Islam is a state religion, the binding powers is supposed to belong to Imams or the community. Actually, in a world where liberalism is raging, powers lies with soldiers assigned with enforcing order and getting rich doing so, so reportedly said roman emperor Severe. Who stood accused with persecuting Christians in some history books and not persecuting them in some other history books. Imho public order is far from justice or even equity. You have equipment and opportunity to use it film flâneur. What are you planning to achieve with it, justice, order, disorder ? Imho disorder is far from justice too. Granted it can be pleasurable to you. If that is your goal, it’s not wrong. But you are getting it at a load of expenses. Our own pleasure, mostly. Can you see that ?
If you can't, have we done anything wrong ?]
Post by transfuged on yesterday at 3:31pm<o:p></o:p></abbr> 🎥🎬🎦🎞 flâneur
Abraham is a being from their same book as the imaginary being. How are is deeds possibly linked with history I referred too above ?
Not all imaginary beings.
Hercules is said to be a hero but his deeds never account’ bottom line. When he brings à monster to his coz’ who ordered him to get it, all his might, success amount to nothing. His coz is ridicule and Alcee’s deed are in the past, un changed. His children are dead. He killed them on a goddess will.
Prior (?) Story to this one : Enkidu and Gilgamesh. Same conclusion. Enki remains dead, Gilgamesh heart is still broken, and the human people who asked for Enki are ridiculed. US.
Prior story, Egypt.
What about looking at the future instead of the past, going forward instead of not going forward ?
Truly,
Edition forgot the love, love.
Gotta go
Mouhah
Before he becomes Hera’s champion (”kleos” ~ glory) in atonement for murdering his sons, Alcee is a bastard son of Zeus and a mortal. As usual with family crime, the guilty one is punished with insanity. Being born a bastard, baby Alcee is a family criminal. (No one is going to kick Zeus’s ass, obviously) Typically, he is sent insanity. In a fit, he kills his children. That is a crime against religion. In order to be purified , he becomes his cousin attendant, who sends him on many errands, full of danger and rewarded with glory. Especially pointless too. Point less, but successful. Hercules is à typical Dorian popular hero. That story is not that different in its conclusion than Isaac’s son story. Obey god, do not murder, be humble. Gilgamesh is an arrogant King who despairs his subjects. He rapes their daughters and their sons are killed in war for the sake of his own name. He is born a semi god. Gods hear the people’s plea and send Gilgamesh a nature born antagonist: Enkidu. But the people will have to stick it over their ear, for Enki and the King become friends, at their own expense because they cause damage fighting before getting buddies. The notion of the afterlife which is at work is gloomy. Nothing better in the afterlife than in actual life. The departed are depicted as shadows of what they were and that is all. Complaining against a semi god is punished with ridicule. And Gilgamesh and Enki are punished too. Enki dies. Gilgamesh heart is broken. That’s it. Enkidu was a formidable contestant. And united, they were successful in defeating many antagonists. But … bottom line, zero amount. Gods can send champions but people are people and they must comply an shut up. So must semi godly kings and nature born heroes. Most of the symbols are identical as Egyptian myths’s. (Parabolas)
With love, T Unfortunately to reply to your post I would have make sense of exactly what you were saying and why it was relevant, and now also it seems spend a good deal of time de-formating your badly arranged message in order to easily read it and quote. I just can't be bothered and I am a patient guy. Chronic obfuscation carried out under the guise of muddled intellectualism is one of the signs by which ye shall know the fanatic, FF. As the late, unlamented Arlon 10 often demonstrated, though even he was somewhat less dense (in all respects).
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2024 14:01:48 GMT
Unfortunately to reply to your post I would have make sense of exactly what you were saying and why it was relevant, and now also it seems spend a good deal of time de-formating your badly arranged message in order to easily read it and quote. I just can't be bothered and I am a patient guy. Chronic obfuscation carried out under the guise of muddled intellectualism is one of the signs by which ye shall know the fanatic, FF. As the late, unlamented Arlon 10 often demonstrated, though even he was somewhat less dense (in all respects). It is not for me to call him dense or a fanatic. His answers are certainly muddled though!
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 29, 2024 14:24:28 GMT
Christianity was actually usually spread through missionary work more often, rather than the sword, historically. Usually, when it was spread by the sword, it was usually due to other factors, such as greed, etc. Eg: When it was discovered that there was gold, silver, diamonds, etc., in the New World, Europeans who originally came to preach the Gospel, had instead decided to raid the Natives in Latin America (such as the Mayans, the Aztecs, etc), instead. Christian missionary work was often as unkind, intrusive, and disrespectful of indigenous cultures (as well as the physical bodies of those peoples) as any incursion by the sword. It often remains so today, despite the strenuous efforts of the churches to deny that this is so. Here is just one article on the destructive aspects of foreign missionary work in current-day India. And this article is from a Christian-based source! www.9marks.org/article/a-plea-for-gospel-sanity-in-missions/ Sounds like the missionaries that are being criticized in the article were Evangelical ones.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 29, 2024 19:13:15 GMT
Chronic obfuscation carried out under the guise of muddled intellectualism is one of the signs by which ye shall know the fanatic, FF. As the late, unlamented Arlon 10 often demonstrated, though even he was somewhat less dense (in all respects). It is not for me to call him dense or a fanatic. His answers are certainly muddled though! He may be neither, but you can only comment on what's before your eyes . He does suggest the thought that excessive religious zeal is not the best path to clear thinking, but perhaps he's just not very good at expressing his thoughts in written form.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 29, 2024 19:18:47 GMT
Christian missionary work was often as unkind, intrusive, and disrespectful of indigenous cultures (as well as the physical bodies of those peoples) as any incursion by the sword. It often remains so today, despite the strenuous efforts of the churches to deny that this is so. Here is just one article on the destructive aspects of foreign missionary work in current-day India. And this article is from a Christian-based source! www.9marks.org/article/a-plea-for-gospel-sanity-in-missions/ Sounds like the missionaries that are being criticized in the article were Evangelical ones. It wouldn't make a great deal of difference, as missionary excesses have not been limited to one particular branch of Christianity. The sort of zealous thinking that informs one that it is a good idea, or a duty, to go out and tinker with the beliefs and cultures of peoples different from yourself is rooted in impulses that are all too amenable to self-righteous abuses.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 29, 2024 20:54:02 GMT
Sounds like the missionaries that are being criticized in the article were Evangelical ones. It wouldn't make a great deal of difference, as missionary excesses have not been limited to one particular branch of Christianity. The sort of zealous thinking that informs one that it is a good idea, or a duty, to go out and tinker with the beliefs and cultures of peoples different from yourself is rooted in impulses that are all too amenable to self-righteous abuses. Does The World Benefit From Missionary Work?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 30, 2024 13:00:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 30, 2024 13:09:31 GMT
There have ALWAYS been missionaries, even before the coming of Christianity. MissionariesAs for indigenous peoples, I think the very fact that colonizers in general have had negative effects on their societies, cultures, & human rights. On the other hand, it could be pointed out that, without contact from missionaries, colonizers, etc., & being left on their own, indigenous peoples get trapped in a primitive lifestyle, in which 95% of the rest of the entire world has moved on from, by millennia, as in the case of the tribes on North Sentinel Island, etc.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jan 30, 2024 15:32:11 GMT
There have ALWAYS been missionaries, even before the coming of Christianity. MissionariesAs for indigenous peoples, I think the very fact that colonizers in general have had negative effects on their societies, cultures, & human rights. On the other hand, it could be pointed out that, without contact from missionaries, colonizers, etc., & being left on their own, indigenous peoples get trapped in a primitive lifestyle, in which 95% of the rest of the entire world has moved on from, by millennia, as in the case of the tribes on North Sentinel Island, etc. It's presumptuous in the extreme to refer to indigenous people as being 'trapped in a primitive lifestyle' for openers. Primitive according to whom? Yourself? The Church? This is a marvelous capsule presentation of the arrogance of Christian missionary mentality. 'What we have is better than your primitive ways', even if those ways have lasted for centuries and have worked well and harmoniously for the people practicing them. If they don't include a big dose of Jesus, well, that sure can't be anything good. One can certainly make a case for the damage wrought historically by incursion through the migration of peoples onto other lands and cultures.Their changes were accidental and incidental, if still often enough devastating and regrettable; but they did not set out with the deliberate intent of upending and changing those cultures the way the Christian missionary does. Over the course of history, there's precious little enough chance that even the more remote populations of the earth would have completely escaped contact with the 'outside' world entirely, without the missionary hastening the process; and, historically, often as not, it was the initial incursion by missionaries that aided in paving the road for other exploitative elements of that same outside world to find their way in.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 30, 2024 19:23:02 GMT
There have ALWAYS been missionaries, even before the coming of Christianity. MissionariesAs for indigenous peoples, I think the very fact that colonizers in general have had negative effects on their societies, cultures, & human rights. On the other hand, it could be pointed out that, without contact from missionaries, colonizers, etc., & being left on their own, indigenous peoples get trapped in a primitive lifestyle, in which 95% of the rest of the entire world has moved on from, by millennia, as in the case of the tribes on North Sentinel Island, etc. It's presumptuous in the extreme to refer to indigenous people as being 'trapped in a primitive lifestyle' for openers. Primitive according to whom? Yourself? The Church? This is a marvelous capsule presentation of the arrogance of Christian missionary mentality. 'What we have is better than your primitive ways', even if those ways have lasted for centuries and have worked well and harmoniously for the people practicing them. If they don't include a big dose of Jesus, well, that sure can't be anything good. One can certainly make a case for the damage wrought historically by incursion through the migration of peoples onto other lands and cultures.Their changes were accidental and incidental, if still often enough devastating and regrettable; but they did not set out with the deliberate intent of upending and changing those cultures the way the Christian missionary does. Over the course of history, there's precious little enough chance that even the more remote populations of the earth would have completely escaped contact with the 'outside' world entirely, without the missionary hastening the process; and, historically, often as not, it was the initial incursion by missionaries that aided in paving the road for other exploitative elements of that same outside world to find their way in. When Europeans came to the New World, the peoples that lived here for thousands of years, were mainly hunter-gatherers, etc. They (the Natives)did not have the technologies that the Europeans (as well as the Asians, Africans, etc) had developed, including a system of writing, etc. Indigenous Peoples Of North America
|
|