Christianity

[Samuraikoku]

The goal of the Church in the New World was to convert, not to genocide. Hitler had no intention of changing Jews except turning them into ashes = genocide.

Then why was the genocide committed?

[Armand2REP]

Then why was the genocide committed?

It wasn't genocide, the Church didn't have any intention of wiping out a race of people. The goal was conversion and the outcome was brutal subjigation. It is one thing to destroy a people = genocide and another to change them = conversion/colonisation. People die either way.

[Samuraikoku]

Then why was the genocide committed?

It wasn't genocide, the Church didn't have any intention of wiping out a race of people. The goal was conversion and the outcome was brutal subjigation. It is one thing to destroy a people = genocide and another to change them = conversion/colonisation. People die either way.

Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

Source: http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm

Is the act of a massive killing of people intended to destroy them? Sounds like it is.

[Oterro]

How on earth were the crusades genocide? Really?

Because lots of X ethnicity died it's genocide?

Nothing to do with the fact that the nigh on entirety of the Muslim kingdom's armies were of X ethnicity, right?

No of course the european nations were attempting to wipe out the Arabs.

pft.

[Armand2REP]

Is the act of a massive killing of people intended to destroy them? Sounds like it is.

Is the act of killing people in order to submit genocide... no. Is the act of killing a group of people in order for them to cease to exist genocide... yes. The Crusades were a long series of wars to get people to submit to rule. There isn't much point in ruling a land without people on it. The mass extinction of Native Americans was not in the interests of the Church, in fact they called it a travesty. They wanted them to submit. What the Turks and Stalin did by forcfully moving entire enthnicities far from their lands and letting them die is genocide because they wanted their destruction. What Hitler did was the most clear cut case of it by simplying destroying everything. Neither of them is right, but get the usage of the word correct.

[The Former Duchy of Lancaster]

Honestly, I'm not a fan of any religion but people should be allowed to hold onto whatever beliefs give them comfort in this frankly, short, painful and confusing life. People can put their faith into whatever they like in the end, whether it's in science, god, or the flying spaghetti monster, it makes no odds to me.

My issue comes in when religion starts demanding that GOVERNMENTS force people to stick by that religions rules. When they start shoving their belief and religion down my throat and telling me that (edit*) they are right and I am wrong THAT bothers me. Religion is a personal thing, nobody has any right to shove it upon another, and nobody certainly has any right to demand that a government conform to that religion. So long as religion and the state remains separated however, and I still have the right to tell those missionaries who bug me in the street/bang on my door to bugger off? Christianity doesn't bother me no.

[Free foundation]

I don't quite get it either, but supposedly God exists in three aspects simultaneously. All one being, but different versions or summat.
The Holy Ghost (it was called the Holy Spirit when explained to me) is the living will of God that is active in the world and inside everyone. It allows people to be inspired to believe and to interpret the scriptures.

More or less. Hindu monotheism is similar to this, so I can understand it.

which means u don't hv ne knowledge of hinduism.

[Avenio]

Was it, or was it not genocide anyway?

Technically speaking, from my experience, it wasn't. Genocide has a rather specific legal definition that came about from the United Nations after World War II; unfortunately, in common usage, it has moved beyond those legal definitions. One term that I've heard used in cases like this that is more accurate is democide, defined by its creator as "The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder". The set of conditions in the crusader states fits the definition of democide, to my knowlege, but does not fit the term genocide.

[Free foundation]

Is the act of a massive killing of people intended to destroy them? Sounds like it is.

Is the act of killing people in order to submit genocide... no. Is the act of killing a group of people in order for them to cease to exist genocide... yes. The Crusades were a long series of wars to get people to submit to rule. There isn't much point in ruling a land without people on it. The mass extinction of Native Americans was not in the interests of the Church, in fact they called it a travesty. They wanted them to submit. What the Turks and Stalin did by forcfully moving entire enthnicities far from their lands and letting them die is genocide because they wanted their destruction. What Hitler did was the most clear cut case of it by simplying destroying everything. Neither of them is right, but get the usage of the word correct.

does it matter whether we can call it genocide or not. so many ppl were killed because of it. it was a murderous act and it showed the true nature of Christianity.

[Halgrond]

Why?

Not very many rituals? Singing? A sermon that isn't really a sermon? Ridiculous! That's not a church, it's an after-school club. Burn them all!

It is a sermon but we don't call it that.

[Farnhamia]

Not very many rituals? Singing? A sermon that isn't really a sermon? Ridiculous! That's not a church, it's an after-school club. Burn them all!

It is a sermon but we don't call it that.

I'm sure it's all very nice. I was just kidding, you know, but some people seem to be of a more literal mind than I.

[Socialdemokraterne]

does it matter whether we can call it genocide or not. so many ppl were killed because of it. it was a murderous act and it showed the true nature of Christianity.

You had me up until that point, then you took just one step too far. The Catholics' war for the holy land was as much a demonstration of Christianity's nature as inherently violent and cruel as the fall of the Weimar Republic was a demonstration that liberal democracy is inherently corrupt and doomed to fail. There are too many cleavages in Christianity to make substantive catch-all statements about the religion beyond the groups' acceptance of monotheism, acceptance of Christ as the messiah, and acceptance of Christ's sacrifice as a redemptive force for humanity's sins. Beyond these things there is no "true nature of Christianity".

Trying to call Catholics the same as Protestants is madness, because Protestants have no central authority figure beyond God itself. Trying to say that Annihilationists view God and God's will in the same way as Universalists is babbling nonsense, because the former contends that sinners will be deleted from existence while the latter contends they will eventually attain salvation and enter paradise. That has a big impact on how you approach non-believers. Then you have to account for the fact that Liberal Christians don't always take the Bible as the inerrant word of God, but rather as the translation of ancient men's understanding of God's will as best they could explain it.

You'd be much better served to argue that the Crusades were an illustration of how religion can be manipulated for the sake of gaining power and wealth. Now that is something that everyone in Christianity has seen someone doing, manipulating our religion for power and wealth. Am I going to deny the existence of Christian sects that embrace violent rhetoric and proclaim their divine right to rule the Earth? Nope, they exist. My objection is to your saying that all Christians are like that, which is what you do when you say that the Crusades demonstrated the "true nature of Christianity".

[Bluth Corporation]

There are too many cleavages in Christianity to make substantive catch-all statements about the religion beyond the groups' acceptance of monotheism, acceptance of Christ as the messiah, and acceptance of Christ's sacrifice as a redemptive force for humanity's sins.

I would question even that.

[Disserbia]

The worst thing in the name of Christianity people complain about are the crusades which is actually a relatively light death toll compared to so many other conflicts. It has brought tremendous good to the world and it has helped modernise it as well. It is the most adaptive of the major religions which is why it is #1.

Protip: arguing that genocide "brought tremendous good to the world" is not a strong argument unless you are enjoying dinner conversation with the reanimated head of Josef Stalin.

Protip: you should know the definition of genocide before you accuse people of committing it.

Now to answer the question at hand. I am Christian but I think religion should be a private thing and should not interfere with politics at all or society or the way you treat others who are not of the same faith as you. This doesn't go well with my denomination (East Orthodox) because it is an antiquated overly-political crock of shite that is incredibly prejudiced against everyone in every possible way.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

The Holocaust was genocide.
The killing of a large group of people of a particular ethnicity.
Back to Christianity, I think that the government should keep the heck out of Dodge. Authority influencing anything faith based shall end badly.

[Holy Paradise]

I'm a devout Catholic, so I like Christianity of course. There have been people that have used the faith to commit terrible atrocities, yes, and for that there is no rebuttal from me, but religion also can do a lot of good, considering all the religious charities out there.

[Socialdemokraterne]

There are too many cleavages in Christianity to make substantive catch-all statements about the religion beyond the groups' acceptance of monotheism, acceptance of Christ as the messiah, and acceptance of Christ's sacrifice as a redemptive force for humanity's sins.

I would question even that.

Two out of those three are entirely inseparable from the doctrine of Christianity (Christ's status as messiah and the redemptive force of his sacrifice). Without those, Christ's relevance is entirely degraded and Christianity falls apart. Monotheism has a teeny bit of wiggle room, but only if you consider the three manifestations of God (Holy Spirit, Son, and Father) to be separate entities. You just can't strip those three qualities away and have anything left that could be called Christianity. Or if you can, I'd need to have how explained to me.

[Tmutarakhan]

I would question even that.

Two out of those three are entirely inseparable from the doctrine of Christianity (Christ's status as messiah and the redemptive force of his sacrifice). Without those, Christ's relevance is entirely degraded and Christianity falls apart. Monotheism has a teeny bit of wiggle room, but only if you consider the three manifestations of God (Holy Spirit, Son, and Father) to be separate entities. You just can't strip those three qualities away and have anything left that could be called Christianity. Or if you can, I'd need to have how explained to me.

Bluth have a private usage of the word "Christianity" for what he considers to be the true original teachings of Jesus, which he does not believe to have resembled much the teachings of Gentile Greek-speaking converts like Paul, and the theologies of the various Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant churches that have stemmed from that heritage. Others have expressed to him how irritating it is for him to use a word in a way that will not be generally be understood; I have also pointed out to him that the word "Christian" itself was coined in Antioch to refer to the Gentile Greek-speaking converts, and that some Hebrew/Aramaic term like "Nazorean" or whatever would be more appropriate if he wants a separate term for the original Jewish following of Jesus.

[Bluth Corporation]

Two out of those three are entirely inseparable from the doctrine of Christianity (Christ's status as messiah and the redemptive force of his sacrifice). Without those, Christ's relevance is entirely degraded and Christianity falls apart. Monotheism has a teeny bit of wiggle room, but only if you consider the three manifestations of God (Holy Spirit, Son, and Father) to be separate entities. You just can't strip those three qualities away and have anything left that could be called Christianity. Or if you can, I'd need to have how explained to me.

Bluth have a private usage of the word "Christianity" for what he considers to be the true original teachings of Jesus,

No, I don't. I'm a Christian, not a Jesusist.

It's about the Christ the ideal, not Jesus the person. Jesus was only an imperfect manifestation of the Christ; some of his teachings were simply un-Christian.

[Bluth Corporation]

I would question even that.

Two out of those three are entirely inseparable from the doctrine of Christianity (Christ's status as messiah and the redemptive force of his sacrifice). Without those, Christ's relevance is entirely degraded and Christianity falls apart.

Not true. The Christ is our savior because by living like the Christ and following the Christ's teachings about how to live with one another we can avoid destroying ourselves. Ideas of atonement, divine redemption, etc., play no part in it.

Monotheism has a teeny bit of wiggle room, but only if you consider the three manifestations of God (Holy Spirit, Son, and Father) to be separate entities.

That assumes there's any place for a god of any sort in Christianity at all. There isn't.

[Seperates]

Bluth have a private usage of the word "Christianity" for what he considers to be the true original teachings of Jesus,

No, I don't. I'm a Christian, not a Jesusist.

It's about the Christ the ideal, not Jesus the person. Jesus was only an imperfect manifestation of the Christ; some of his teachings were simply un-Christian.

And now I finally understand where you come from, and while it makes sense... is pretty much Buddism renamed.

[Bluth Corporation]

No, I don't. I'm a Christian, not a Jesusist.

It's about the Christ the ideal, not Jesus the person. Jesus was only an imperfect manifestation of the Christ; some of his teachings were simply un-Christian.

And now I finally understand where you come from, and while it makes sense... is pretty much Buddism renamed.

I'm not sure I follow.

[Odins Scandinavia]

"Christianity was created by some decadent and degenerated Romans as a tool of oppression, in the late Roman era, and it should be treated accordingly. It is like handcuffs to the mind and spirit and is nothing but destructive to mankind. In fact I don't really see Christianity as a religion. It is more like a spiritual plague, a mass psychosis, and it should first and foremost be treated as a problem to be solved by the medical science. Christianity is a diagnosis. It's like Islam and the other Asian religions, a HIV/AIDS of the spirit and mind." -Varg Vikernes

[Kirrig]

I think Christianity has caused more trouble than it should have. That is not to say it has not accomplished any good, it is merely to say I think Christianity has caused more trouble than it should have

[Farnhamia]

"Christianity was created by some decadent and degenerated Romans as a tool of oppression, in the late Roman era, and it should be treated accordingly. It is like handcuffs to the mind and spirit and is nothing but destructive to mankind. In fact I don't really see Christianity as a religion. It is more like a spiritual plague, a mass psychosis, and it should first and foremost be treated as a problem to be solved by the medical science. Christianity is a diagnosis. It's like Islam and the other Asian religions, a HIV/AIDS of the spirit and mind." -Varg Vikernes

That's a bit much, I must say. And he's quite wrong about the origins of the religion.