And people wonder why I have a hard time believing Christianity
And people wonder why I have a hard time believing Christianity
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/18423698
29 comments
-
you could literally completely remove the context of history and all the fucked up shit therein, and the religion of christianity would STILL be laughably absurd on the face of it
-
Or, to put it in words:
"Christianity didn't become a world religion because of the quality of its teachings, but by the quantity of its violence" - Eleanor Ferguson
-
Just in case anyone thought this could use more jpeg:
-
thanks just what i needed
-
-
No enough kid diddling in that bottom picture.
-
That comes with having giant institutions that can bury kid-diddling, and do so in the name of preserving their reputation. In consequence, the edifice is more important than innocent human lives.
I suspect the same edifice is what sends crusaders and militarized missions.
-
-
Lol this is exactly how they teach "how we accepted Islam" in turkish history classes. They say our previous religion (tengrism) was really similar to Islam and so we just... idk... converted to Islam?
In reality tengrism is nowhere near similar to Islam and we had to accept converting to islam after years of wars and unending oppression by muslims
-
It's 2024 and we still have wars on religions. Sigh. And why we still don't have atheist political leaders yet.
-
-
Nobody does, it's a dead cult
-
For what it’s worth, Buddhism was similarly spread by Ashoka.
It’s likely all religion has been spread by violence.
-
Except it's the other way around. Ashoka gave up conquering after he converted to Buddhism.
-
Atheists hate this one simple trick (converting monarchs and emperors to your faith).
-
Yes, because the brutal warlord suddenly became repulsed by violence and never again resorted to violence….
(There are those 18,000 monks mentioned, and I find it dubious there wasn’t internal discord, considering.)
-
-
I'm sure there have been minor incidents, but as far as I know Sikhism comes to mind as a religion that doesn't have blood on its hands.
-
While it’d be unfair to compare Sikhs to crusaders, it’s not like there weren’t Sikh states at war (especially with the Mughals. And, uh, the British East India company.)
It’s also important to note much of the Sikh militarism was brought out of self defense- persecution by Muslims and Hindus in particular were pervasive throughout their history; and the handful of states that were specifically Sikh, were mostly short lived.
Suffice it to say, it’s a very modern concept that religions were supposed to be peaceful. For most of history, religion was as much a part of national identity as it was fervent beliefs.
This isn’t to say that members in those religions can’t be absolutely peaceful.
-
-
The Baha'is haven't used violence, they also don't proselytize.
-
-
It was also done by murdering, massacring, and forcibly converting my Jewish ancestors. There's a reason why my entire extended family is small (people forget that the Holocaust was done for and by Christians).
-
-
I recommend you learning history first
Holy Irony Batman.
The down votes are because you didn't learn actual history, and are spouting antisemitic lies.
Please explain how the crusades were defensive? Christians in Europe going over to the Middle East, and attempting to start shit, but ultimately baking in their armor, isn't defensive. Do you also call Russia's invasion of Ukraine defensive?
-
-
-
Christianity saved many lives for slavery. If you think back to Roman empire, this was build on human bodies. Many slaves from conquered countries working on farms and construction sites for Governmental sake. Even Romans could fell to slavery through debts. Unfortunately, it poor countries it still happens that parents sell their kids or even sell themselves (think about Bangladeshis, Bhirmese or Pakistani in Emirates, Khatar or Thailand) That way of society was stopped by Christianity. Btw Islam, Buddism, and Confucianism stopped it as well.
You might argue that slavery was active in the New World. Yes, indeed and it was against the Christianity. Out of this moral dilemma the European thinkers „invented“ Rassism to make slaves non human and being able to resell slaves from Africa to Americas. And guess who sold the slaves in Africa to the European merchants?
I know this is outside your comfort zone of thinking. It’s just a little brain gymnastic for you.
-
I have some news for you. The Spanish state, its church, and its representatives did a LOT of enslaving of the Native Americans. The missions that pepper California and Mexico were almost entirely dependent on the labor of enslaved natives, and they were horrifically brutal about it, too. In a book I have on the subject, there's an example of one priest who complained about how the natives were treated, and he was summarily relocated. So, Christianity had an enormous role in enslaving and murdering native Americans, and it had nothing to do with Merchants.
-
You didn’t get my point that I didn’t neglect it. I just mentioned that it also saved Europe of being enslaved by ancient Roman Empire.
Later Christianity changed it‘s view on slaves and invented Rassism for put Africans and American natives into slavery. Ever heard of Spanish-born of French men slaves in Americas?
And to make it even less black/white or god/bad, some more nuances: Habe you heard of Munch armies in Americas? Or were it soldiers? Do you draw any difference between governments, church, and religion?
-
-
29 comments