Christian Discussion Thread XI: Anicetus’ Revenge

[Tarsonis]

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.

And the same thing happened between "natives"

[Hakons]

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?

That was his own words. It's his view of what other people outside the Church think of the Church.

[Hakons]

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.

They're defensive because it was a secular person accusing Christianity of ideological enslavement. That's a pretty basic thing a Christian should respond against.

European doesn't automatically mean Christian of course, the first Christians were from the East and modern Christianity is global and diverse. Much more diverse then, say, atheism. Germanic tribes weren't European though, they were... Germanic. The idea of Europe is a Christian idea, when through the medieval period and the renaissance the nations in Christendom were eventually considered to be Europe.

[Lost Memories]

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

That was his own words. It's his view of what other people outside the Church think of the Church.

Ah, that's a bit, self referential. I thought it was an actualy historical writing. Thanks for clarifying.

[Pyrghium]

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

Also there were many crusades inside Europe itself.

Some even against fellow Christians...

[Lower Nubia]

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.

When Columbus landed in the Caribbean the people he met were fearful of raiders, who would invade islands, enslave them, and sell them to the mainland natives.

Miss me with the: “EuRoPe DiD tHiS” when it should be: “Everyone does this.”

The letter, in all it’s cynical testament to human ‘compassion’:

“Many of the men I have seen have scars on their bodies, and when I made signs to them to find out how this happened, they indicated that people from other nearby islands come to San Salvador to capture them; they defend themselves the best they can. I believe that people from the mainland come here to take them as slaves. They ought to make good and skilled servants, for they repeat very quickly whatever we say to them. I think they can very easily be made Christians, for they seem to have no religion. If it pleases our Lord, I will take six of them to Your Highnesses when I depart, in order that they may learn our language." Columbus noted that their primitive weapons and military tactics made them susceptible to easy conquest, writing, "these people are very simple in war-like matters … I could conquer the whole of them with 50 men, and govern them as I pleased.“

[Lower Nubia]

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.

We don’t defend them, we’re just realistic: people are bastards.

[Europa Undivided]

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?

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.

Finland: Has a state sponsored church. Also very good quality of life.
Norway: Same as above. Also has a long arse time off work.
Denmark: Same as above. Also has a long arse time off work.
Iceland: Has all the conditions needed for a almost perfectly stable society. Not because it’s nonreligious.
Switzerland: The country no one bothered to invade for the last 200 years is happy? Wow, I’m surprised.
Netherlands: Purely because it has a good quality of life.
Canada: When you have free healthcare and other good things, you are bound to be happy.
New Zealand: Again, nice place to live in. Being happy in New Zealand doesn’t have a lot to do with nonreligiosity.
Sweden: Has some of the longest time off work in the world. No wonder they’re happy.
Australia: Quality of life yet again.

If nonreligiosity was such a huge factor in being happy in life then maybe China and the Soviet Union should’ve been happy, yes?

[Eglaecia]

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?

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.

Correlation and causation are two different things. The ten happiest countries are also among ten of the richest, with the highest standards of living, and also the whitest (though it would be racist to point that out, wouldn't it?). While the ten least happy are among the most underdeveloped, disease ridden and war-torn.

[Europa Undivided]

Is that why the least religious countries are the happiest?

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.

Correlation and causation are two different things. The ten happiest countries are also among ten of the richest, with the highest standards of living, and also the whitest (though it would be racist to point that out, wouldn't it?). While the ten least happy are among the most underdeveloped, disease ridden and war-torn.

They also have small populations.

[Lost Memories]

Is that why the least religious countries are the happiest?

Switzerland: The country no one bothered to invade for the last 200 years is happy? Wow, I’m surprised.

Switzerland listed as not religious is super bullshit.
They take the swiss guards at the vatican as national pride.

Most of the unaffiliated they have now are ex protestants from after the 1973 popular removal from the constitution of the ban on jesuit activity. Which was imposed by protestants in 1848.

[Europa Undivided]

Switzerland: The country no one bothered to invade for the last 200 years is happy? Wow, I’m surprised.

Switzerland listed as not religious is super bullshit.
They take the swiss guards at the vatican as national pride.

Most of the unaffiliated they have now are ex protestants from after the 1973 popular removal from the constitution of the ban on jesuit activity. Which was imposed by protestants in 1848.

Right.

If nonreligiousity made people happy then the Soviet Union should have been the happiest country on Earth.

[Lower Nubia]

Is that why the least religious countries are the happiest?

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.

Correlation and causation are two different things. The ten happiest countries are also among ten of the richest, with the highest standards of living, and also the whitest (though it would be racist to point that out, wouldn't it?). While the ten least happy are among the most underdeveloped, disease ridden and war-torn.

Let's not be stupid now. white + black =/= reduced happiness.

[Dogmeat]

Switzerland: The country no one bothered to invade for the last 200 years is happy? Wow, I’m surprised.

Switzerland listed as not religious is super bullshit.
They take the swiss guards at the vatican as national pride.

Yeah, but that has more to do with their historical reputation as fearsome soldiers.

Switzerland listed as not religious is super bullshit.
They take the swiss guards at the vatican as national pride.

Most of the unaffiliated they have now are ex protestants from after the 1973 popular removal from the constitution of the ban on jesuit activity. Which was imposed by protestants in 1848.

Right.

If nonreligiousity made people happy then the Soviet Union should have been the happiest country on Earth.

Probably not the best example, since it's well known that the Soviet Union fudged those figures.

There are actual studies that show that religious people tend to be, on average, happier. Why don't you just point at those.

[Nakena]

Also there were many crusades inside Europe itself.

Some even against fellow Christians...

The one against Byzantium comes to mind.

[Tarsonis]

Come on guys, let's not bicker and argue over who killed who.

[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.

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.

Actually, yes they did, if it was an established territory recognised by European powers.

I am targeting all Europeans Powers (specifically those individuals with power and authority) who attacked and took over the lands of the American peoples and forced their religion upon the people.

[Celritannia]

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.

Not to the extent of the Americas where 1000s of years of history and culture were practically wiped out.

[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.

Of course the Spanish stole land. They stole it to find gold.

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.

The Spanish were far more brutal than the French, Dutch, or British.
Then it was the Americans that became worse for their treatment of the Natives.

Looks like the Europeans who took over the lands of these people forgot "Love Thy Neighbour", because that didn't apply to non-christian "barbarians".

[Celritannia]

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

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

Did I say they were peace loving?
The different nations in the Americas were much like any other human civilisation.

[Celritannia]

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?

In secular countries, religious education is a thing you know.

Secularism is neutrality to ensure no one religion or belief is only taught in schools.

You are allowed to talk about your religious ideology in a Religious Education classroom, just not a science one, as that is for science.

[Eglaecia]

Some even against fellow Christians...

The one against Byzantium comes to mind.

Brought up continuously as if sacking Constantinople was part of the Crusade. It wasn't. The people responsible for it were excommunicated already for sacking Zara on behalf of the Venetians.

[Celritannia]

Is that why the least religious countries are the happiest?

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.

Correlation and causation are two different things. The ten happiest countries are also among ten of the richest, with the highest standards of living, and also the whitest (though it would be racist to point that out, wouldn't it?). While the ten least happy are among the most underdeveloped, disease ridden and war-torn.

They were also the nations that established empires and used their power over their colonised peoples to take what they wanted.
European Colonisation is the result of two polar opposites. The least religious and happy nation with the most religious and poor nation (with the exception of the Arab world).

And you are also correct, the better standards of living means better education, medicine, infrastructure etc so believing in a deity has become less of a necessity for them.
Where as the poorer nations, not having those benefits find solace in religion to cope.

[Eglaecia]

Correlation and causation are two different things. The ten happiest countries are also among ten of the richest, with the highest standards of living, and also the whitest (though it would be racist to point that out, wouldn't it?). While the ten least happy are among the most underdeveloped, disease ridden and war-torn.

They were also the nations that established empires and used their power over their colonised peoples to take what they wanted.
European Colonisation is the result of two polar opposites. The least religious and happy nation with the most religious and poor nation (with the exception of the Arab world).

Yes we did - what marvelous times!

And you are also correct, the better standards of living means better education, medicine, infrastructure etc so believing in a deity has become less of a necessity for them.
Where as the poorer nations, not having those benefits find solace in religion to cope.

"Cope" yeah yeah heard this a million times before. How do you know they're coping? You're just imposing that on them when you don't know why they believe. I could flip it around and say actually they're not coping but they're dealing with reality while westerners have all these worldly possessions that allow them to cope.

[Celritannia]

They were also the nations that established empires and used their power over their colonised peoples to take what they wanted.
European Colonisation is the result of two polar opposites. The least religious and happy nation with the most religious and poor nation (with the exception of the Arab world).

And you are also correct, the better standards of living means better education, medicine, infrastructure etc so believing in a deity has become less of a necessity for them.
Where as the poorer nations, not having those benefits find solace in religion to cope.

"Cope" yeah yeah heard this a million times before. How do you know they're coping? You're just imposing that on them when you don't know why they believe. I could flip it around and say actually they're not coping but they're dealing with reality while westerners have all these worldly possessions that allow them to cope.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/142727/rel ... tions.aspx

One theory is that religion plays a more functional role in the world's poorest countries, helping many residents cope with a daily struggle to provide for themselves and their families. A previous Gallup analysis supports this idea, revealing that the relationship between religiosity and emotional well-being is stronger among poor countries than among those in the developed world.