Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Lower Nubia]

The indigenous populations of North & South America were equally as ruthless, politically ambitious, and domineering as their European counterparts. This is why the Europeans could so easily pit themselves against each other for political gain.

If the Aztecs had the advantage and sailed across the sea with a weak & divided Europe we would see the reverse of our own timeline. Why do we extend them a courtesy simply for losing the untold, political & technological, arms race?

For one thing, they never had a chance to win. I’ll elaborate more when I have a chance, but-plant and animal differences in the Americas ensured European dominance.

This is called life.

It's possible to make all the right choices and still lose.

[Celritannia]

You do realise, that was not fully the Aztec Culture, don't you? Perhaps you should look more in-depth into their history.
Firstly, that didn't happen all the time.
Secondly, the European kingdoms also drowned men women and children
Thirdly, this wasn't just the Aztec Empire, this was all the indigenous people of the Americas the Spanish exploited.

The indigenous populations of North & South America were equally as ruthless, politically ambitious, and domineering as their European counterparts. This is why the Europeans could so easily pit themselves against each other for political gain.

If the Aztecs had the advantage and sailed across the sea with a weak & divided Europe we would see the reverse of our own timeline. Why do we extend them a courtesy simply for losing the untold, political & technological, arms race?

The native peoples of North and South America were as human as the Europeans who also were brutal and politically ambitious.
It's how all human nations are.

Why are you all fixated on the Aztecs?
The Spanish took over and stole land from all the American indigenous people they took over and forced them to convert to Christianity.

Before he was burned, a priest asked Hatuey if he would accept Jesus and go to heaven. Las Casas recalled the reaction of the chief:

[Hatuey], thinking a little, asked the religious man if Spaniards went to heaven. The religious man answered yes... The chief then said without further thought that he did not want to go there but to hell so as not to be where they were and where he would not see such cruel people. This is the name and honor that God and our faith have earned.[5]

[Lower Nubia]

The indigenous populations of North & South America were equally as ruthless, politically ambitious, and domineering as their European counterparts. This is why the Europeans could so easily pit themselves against each other for political gain.

If the Aztecs had the advantage and sailed across the sea with a weak & divided Europe we would see the reverse of our own timeline. Why do we extend them a courtesy simply for losing the untold, political & technological, arms race?

The native peoples of North and South America were as human as the Europeans who also were brutal and politically ambitious.
It's how all human nations are.

Why are you all fixated on the Aztecs?
The Spanish took over and stole land from all the American indigenous people they took over and forced them to convert to Christianity.

Before he was burned, a priest asked Hatuey if he would accept Jesus and go to heaven. Las Casas recalled the reaction of the chief:

[Hatuey], thinking a little, asked the religious man if Spaniards went to heaven. The religious man answered yes... The chief then said without further thought that he did not want to go there but to hell so as not to be where they were and where he would not see such cruel people. This is the name and honor that God and our faith have earned.[5]

Cheers for reiterating Christianities perspective of humanity. Well, that was pointless.

[Celritannia]

These countries, low in population, homogenous, and living with preestablished Christian ethics, are surviving on a foundation built by the pious. How long they keep it is up to them.
State atheistic countries failed immensely in developing their own code of ethics separate from Christianity, or religion altogether.

Also, there is the problem of confusing cause with correlation. Being less religious doesn't make people happier, but material prosperity seems to lead to higher rates of happiness and lower rates of religion. Then there is also the question of whether materially prosperous people are actually happy, or only think themselves happy. If measures of happiness are based purely on self-reporting, then it is hard if not impossible to tell the difference between superficial illusory happiness versus a deeper more spiritually grounded sort of happiness.

Also take note that the most religious countries tended to be the places in which the Christian Empires took over, stoles their resources, and made the inhabitants second class citizens.

It is also the fact that better access to education, healthcare, and housing is what makes these nations happy and least religious.

[Celritannia]

The native peoples of North and South America were as human as the Europeans who also were brutal and politically ambitious.
It's how all human nations are.

Why are you all fixated on the Aztecs?
The Spanish took over and stole land from all the American indigenous people they took over and forced them to convert to Christianity.

Cheers for reiterating Christianities perspective of humanity. Well, that was pointless.

I never was against that.
But you are missing the entire point.
The European powers, especially of Spain, stole land of the native inhabitants and forced them to be Christian. That land belonged to the native peoples.

[Celritannia]

Moving away from this though.
Has anyone here read the Jefferson Bible. If so, what are people's thoughts on it?

[Lower Nubia]

Cheers for reiterating Christianities perspective of humanity. Well, that was pointless.

I never was against that.
But you are missing the entire point.
The European powers, especially of Spain, stole land of the native inhabitants and forced them to be Christian. That land belonged to the native peoples.

The land belongs to no-one. It is land. It's no more the Aztecs as it was the Spanish's.

[Tarsonis]

Moving away from this though.
Has anyone here read the Jefferson Bible. If so, what are people's thoughts on it?

Team Four Star's Bible Abridged series was better

[Celritannia]

Moving away from this though.
Has anyone here read the Jefferson Bible. If so, what are people's thoughts on it?

Team Four Star's Bible Abridged series was better

Ha, I may have to look into that.
Anything by them is surely to be entertaining.

[Celritannia]

I never was against that.
But you are missing the entire point.
The European powers, especially of Spain, stole land of the native inhabitants and forced them to be Christian. That land belonged to the native peoples.

The land belongs to no-one. It is land. It's no more the Aztecs as it was the Spanish's.

That a euro-centric position.
That's like me saying the house you are in is now mine because I broke into it stole your stuff and kicked you into the garden.

[Tarsonis]

The land belongs to no-one. It is land. It's no more the Aztecs as it was the Spanish's.

That a euro-centric position.
That's like me saying the house you are in is now mine because I broke into it stole your stuff and kicked you into the garden.

If I didnt have the means to repel you, it would be

[Celritannia]

That a euro-centric position.
That's like me saying the house you are in is now mine because I broke into it stole your stuff and kicked you into the garden.

If I didnt have the means to repel you, it would be

And the indigenous peoples did try, however, the Europeans were able to destroy them (mainly though illness after the initial take over).

[Tarsonis]

If I didnt have the means to repel you, it would be

And the indigenous peoples did try, however, the Europeans were able to destroy them (mainly though illness after the initial take over).

People get conquered all the time.

[Lower Nubia]

The land belongs to no-one. It is land. It's no more the Aztecs as it was the Spanish's.

That a euro-centric position.
That's like me saying the house you are in is now mine because I broke into it stole your stuff and kicked you into the garden.

Apart from the fact I’d have the deed and a police force to cart you off.

Do nations in the 16th century have anything to enforce international recognition of territory? No?

Bad analogy.

In reality this shows your contempt for the Spanish because you don’t seem to care for the previously non-Aztec owners who the Aztec stole it off.

What’s the limit here on theft? If King Montezuma revokes land from his nobility and peasants is that legitimate? If no, then the Spanish did nothing that the Aztecs didn’t do. If yes, Then your simply targeting the Spanish for your narrative.

[Salus Maior]

Cheers for reiterating Christianities perspective of humanity. Well, that was pointless.

I never was against that.
But you are missing the entire point.
The European powers, especially of Spain, stole land of the native inhabitants and forced them to be Christian. That land belonged to the native peoples.

The Spanish didn't really steal land from the natives, not like the English did.

The majority of peoples in Latin America are either of native descent or half native. Because the Spanish intermarried with them, rather than force them off.

[Tarsonis]

Why are we treating "natives" as a cohesive block?

[Lower Nubia]

Why are we treating "natives" as a cohesive block?

Because it makes the narrative of "evil" Europeans against the "peace-loving" natives more palatable.

[Hakons]

The premise that the divine, the spiritual, and the religious, are not intimately involved with the physical reality, with the worldly estate, and the organization of people is itself a quasi-religious claim presented by a secular, modern worldview. It is our faith that the Divine is the cause that all things exist, is the Reason that forms political action, and is the Omnipotent that permits or topples government; for all these things are acted on or permitted to exist by He who commands Providence.

I do recognize that when modern polities succumb to secularism, they dramatically reject the previous religious government. As you mentioned Spain, to which I would add Quebec as another clear example. I don't think that's really a reply to my statement. When secularists take power, they're not establishing neutrality from religion or philosophy, they're establishing their own quasi-religion with its own precepts, rites, and blasphemies.

Is that why the least religious countries are the happiest?

"Happiness" is vague and shallow metric. Hilariously, a lot of the top ten nations have a state supported Church. They're less secular than the US government. The study uses indexes on "income, healthy life expectancy, social support, freedom, trust and generosity" as a proxy for measuring "happiness." Quite the dubious method! You haven't showed a link between irreligion and happiness, you demonstrated the possible link between wealthy privilege and lack of care for religion. If your ideology was perfect for the secure, the wealthy, and the wasteful, while my religion was perfect for the impoverished, the war-torn, and the sorrowful, it would be abundantly for the credit of my religion.

Also, no. Secular countries establish a nation to ensure all relgions are free and not one takes precedence.
There is also the fact that he least religious countries focus on other, more human-centric endeavours.

Secular countries don't ensure all religions are free. Secular countries establish a domineering secular ideology that has exclusive control on government, education, and public society. Secularism isn't neutrality, it's the establishment of non-religion as the state supported religion. With your secular ideology, you could teach it in schools and it would be legal. I'm not allowed to teach my religious ideology, because the secular state doesn't allow that. You can create a law based off of your secular philosophy, but I would not be allowed to make laws based off of my religious philosophy. It's not neutrality.

Finally, what do you mean by "human-centric endeavors"? Are religious people and countries not concerned with human endeavors?

[Lost Memories]

Hakons, what is the source of the second quote from this post?

[Lower Nubia]

Is that why the least religious countries are the happiest?

"Happiness" is vague and shallow metric. Hilariously, a lot of the top ten nations have a state supported Church. They're less secular than the US government. The study uses indexes on "income, healthy life expectancy, social support, freedom, trust and generosity" as a proxy for measuring "happiness." Quite the dubious method! You haven't showed a link between irreligion and happiness, you demonstrated the possible link between wealthy privilege and lack of care for religion. If your ideology was perfect for the secure, the wealthy, and the wasteful, while my religion was perfect for the impoverished, the war-torn, and the sorrowful, it would be abundantly to to the credit of my religion.

Also, no. Secular countries establish a nation to ensure all relgions are free and not one takes precedence.
There is also the fact that he least religious countries focus on other, more human-centric endeavours.

Secular countries don't ensure all religions are free. Secular countries establish a domineering secular ideology that has exclusive control on government, education, and public society. Secularism isn't neutrality, it's the establishment of non-religion as the state supported religion. With your secular ideology, you could teach it in schools and it would be legal. I'm not allowed to teach my religious ideology, because the secular state doesn't allow that. You can create a law based off of your secular philosophy, but I would not be allowed to make laws based off of my religious philosophy. It's not neutrality.

Finally, what do you mean by "human-centric endeavors"? Are religious people and countries not concerned with human endeavors?

That's not a dubious method for measuring happiness. I would agree that irreligion and happiness from the "Top 10 happiest countries" is dubious however.

[Hakons]

Hakons, what is the source of the second quote from this post?

It's from St. John Henry Newman's work An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Here's a link to the quoted section. Newman was an Anglican priest and prominent theologian that converted to Catholicism. He was quite renown in 19th century British religious discourse, and he eventually became a Cardinal. He was canonized a saint last year.

[Nakena]

Why are we treating "natives" as a cohesive block?

Because it makes the narrative of "evil" Europeans against the "peace-loving" natives more palatable.

Also there were many crusades inside Europe itself. With various tribes being slaughtered and genocided.

[Lost Memories]

Hakons, what is the source of the second quote from this post?

It's from St. John Henry Newman's work An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. Here's a link to the quoted section. Newman was an Anglican priest and prominent theologian that converted to Catholicism. He was quite renown in 19th century British religious discourse, and he eventually became a Cardinal. He was canonized a saint last year.

So that quote was his? Was he paraphrasing someone else? Or was he quoting someone else? Who was that someone else?

[Ayytaly]

Getting defensive and trying to justify Europeans genociding Amerindians in a Christian thread is one of the main reasons why we get a bad rep. It's as if being European automatically means Christian, despite the rather diabolical pagan culture Germanic tribes followed prior to Christianity's spread over Rome.

[Salus Maior]

Because it makes the narrative of "evil" Europeans against the "peace-loving" natives more palatable.

Also there were many crusades inside Europe itself. With various tribes being slaughtered and genocided.

That's just simplifying things to stupidity. I'm not going to say I support everything that happened in the Middle Ages, but I'm not going to slap it with some kind of black and white label either.