Do you think Christian society has been history's most violent?

[Onlooker]

I got to thinking that people like Hitler, Stalin, and King Leopold were all from Christian environments. Add to that the whole tragedy of colonialization, the murder of American Indians, the conquest of Mexico, and so on, it seems to me that one part of the legacy of Christianity is absolutely awful. WWI and WWII combined account for about 75,000,000 deaths; King Leopold murdered at least 5,000,000 people, and the various wars in which Christian nations have been the aggressor have killed millions more.

Civil wars aside, do you know if other cultures have as much blood on their hands?

I do recognize that Christian culture has given rise to great art and science and, ironically, has led the world in issues of human rights.

[Stop_the_War]

1. You forgot to mention the Crusades....

[FreedomAngel82]

4. I could see that

I'm Christian and of course was brought up reading the Old Testament. It's full of wars and things like that. If you've never read the Old Testament it's quite interesting on how different God is protrayed in those days and the New Testament. Like a total 180 degrees.

[salinen]

2. First concepts taught

You are evil. God is not evil. Satan is evil. Satan wants to burn you for eternity. Do as God wants and you will avoid blisters. Christianity is child abuse.

[davepc]

3. since when are Hitler and Stalin Christian?

[FreedomAngel82]

6. They aren't but

they claimed to be. At least I know Hitler did. That's why, I think, he was able to go after the Jews. :cry:

[Journeyman]

13. You need to do some serious reading. . .

into the history of antisemitism. For starters, try Hannah Arendt's Antisemitism, first volume in her trilogy, The Origins of Totalitarianism. You'll find that though religion plays a role, it's not the driving force so many believe it to be.

[Maraya1969]

10. Hitler was a Christian

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism (quotes from Mein Kampf)
Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.

(from one of the links to Mein Kampf)


My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

[Maraya1969]

14. Check out THIS site

Compares Bush to Hitler and Stalin


http://www.thepubliccause.net/Articles/BushHitlerStalinGOP.html

I. Bush and Hitler:

Is History Repeating Itself?

Until he discovered politics, Hitler failed at just about everything he had ever undertaken, and no one expected him to rise to power. However, Hitler found a simple way to the top: Just tell discontented people what they want to hear and make promises you have no intention of keeping. He found that in the world of propaganda and power plays, a gift of gab and bullish determination could replace sound principles and honesty.


In his first radio speech after becoming Chancellor on January 30, 1933, Hitler---a fervent Christian---invoked God's blessing on the German government and pledged
. . . to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation,
but die Führer (the Leader) had no intention of being a uniter. His Nazi Party's battle cry throughout the campaign was

Down with the liberals!

He included Social Democrats, gays, Jews, and any threat to his model of Christian society in this group, and they all became his sworn enemies.

As soon as he was in office, Hitler began ramming through one action after the other in rapid, aggressive succession. His side-kick Goebbels, head of propaganda and undoubtedly the bulk of the diabolical brains behind the operation, gleefully wrote in his diary:

The struggle is a light one now as we are able to employ all the means of the state

(including the judiciary). In addition, he noted the
Radio and press are at our disposal.

[QC]

25. "Hitler was a Christian."

That's the concensus at Stormfront: http://www.stormfront.org/archive/t-175562Hitler_was_a_Christian.html

Others are not so sure. Martin Borman, a man of some influence in Nazi Germany, said that "National Socialist and Christian concepts are incompatible."

Hitler himself was even more emphatic: "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."

The matter comes down to whether one trusts Hitler's private or public pronouncements more.

[tx_dem41]

33. Heh, heh. n/t

[buzzard]

73. Same goes for Bush. n/t

[AndyP]

5. actually I would include all religions

Think of most large wars fought throughout the ages (and into today). They were all dick measuring contests between two different religions (my God could kick your God's ass). But Christians have to be the worst, you bring a good point.

[Walt Starr]

7. Actually, I think you're operating under a flawed perception

DUers who know me will know I am not inclined to give Christianity any benefit of the doubt. In the case of human violent behavior, however, I must note this proclivity is more ingrained in human behavior at a basic level and cannot be associated freely with religion or lack thereof.

We are a violent childish species demnstrating a lack of intelligence. Until we come to grips with our animalistic natures and evolve beyond the violence, we will never become an intelligent species. We're close, but our violent natures holds us back.

It is my hope that homo sapiens one day evolves into an intelligent species.

[ultraist]

12. How can you dismiss that fact that religion is a major component

of a culture? It bears a lot of influence. I cannot recall one war that Buddhists have waged.

I would venture to say that most wars are connected to religion: Christian vs. Muslim, Muslim vs. Jews (Isreal & Palestine), Hindus vs. Christians (British occupation), Christians vs. Jews (Hitler), etc

Christian cultures are very domineering. The British have a long history of colonization (Africa, apartheid) as does the US.

[Walt Starr]

18. Let's change the term "religion" to "philospophy"

Belief structures are inherently flawed and it is putting absolute power into any belief structure that is the flaw which leads to the unleashing of our animalistic nature.

Religion is not required. Soviet Russia proved that. All that is necessary is putting absolute faith into any human social structure.

[ultraist]

26. I'd rather not.

Religion is a major contributer to one's worldview. Philosophy is not religion although it also contributes. Granted they are intertwined but religion can be compartmentalized. Culture is generally defined as relgion, art, language, food and customs. Social mores come from one's culture as does a worldview.

Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism as well as Native American, all teach that every living being is connected and forbid violence. This impacts their worldview.

Christianity on the other hand, does not hold a holistic view but espouses that a hieracrchy exists with a male figure at the top. This all powerful figure demands submission and obedience and invokes fear to gain it. Fear of punishment, hell.

I defer to Einstein:
http://www.some-guy.com/quotes/einstein.html#war
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. However, Buddhist Japan went through nearly 450 years of

continuous internal warfare (1185-1615) in which Buddhism was, believe it or not, used to justify atrocities. During that period, Buddhist monks were armed and would take part in the mayhem. (This is the period of linguistic history that I wrote my Ph.D. thesis on, so I had to study the political, literary, and religious history of medieval Japan.)

Buddhist Cambodia inflicted one of the worst human rights disasters of the twentieth century upon itself.

The Aztecs of Mexico were notorious for their cruelty, and recent archaeological discoveries have shown that the Maya were not the peaceful people we used to think they were.

Let's remember the pre-Christian Romans, too. They conquered the known world just because it was there and were brutal to anyone who objected. How many slaves were crucified with Spartacus? 12,000, was it?

If people want to be cruel and tyrannical, any excuse will do.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tx_dem41]

60. Why are you quoting from a seemingly racist website?

The chapter on race mixing is fascinating. :eyes:

[ultraist]

61. I didn't read the entire website

But the points they make about the wars of Christianity are relevant. I just did a search for Christianity and wars to find something to explain my point.

If you are worried I'm racist, read my posts in the "white privilege" or slavery reparation threads. :eyes:

It's best not to make assumptions about people.

[tx_dem41]

65. I did read those. That was why I was concerned.

I made no assumptions. I asked you a question about the site. Your use of it was inconsistent with past behavior.

Since, Stormfront (the most vile racist website out there) quotes the white-history website often in defense of their theories, I will have to discount everything from white-history.com.

[Walt Starr]

72. I disagree completely

again, you seem to limit the phenomenon to Christianity alone, and that's a blatantly false assumption.

[misanthrope]

74. Say what?!...

..."Native American"? Which nation?

You might want to do a lot more research before you make sweeping statements like that. Start out by discovering why Tecumseh was such a revolutionary in the history of the Shawnee, or look into the rise and fall of Mayan civilization, then work your way out from there.

Violence was as much an aspect of indigenous American peoples' existence as it was for humans elsewhere. Maybe you could get away with a statement like that concerning the Hopi, but their Anasazi ancestors certainly were bloodthirsty.

[whistle]

8. A Christan society invented the atomic bomb and used it twice..

...but for centuries the industrialized world which began in the west thrived on wars and imperial expansion and committed much violence.

[ultraist]

9. Yes, since it's inception

I'm not sure if other cultures were more violent pre-Christianity or not. But, early civilizations were not able to commit wide scale mass murder in the same capacity that later ones, that had improved technology (weapons) are.

Native Americans, Hindus, Buddhists,& Jews are far more peaceful than Christians. I'm not sure about Muslims but a fair comparison would have to start when Christianity was conceived.

Organized Religion has had a powerful impact on many cultures and it's interesting to consider what cultures are less violent and then look to the religion to see how that has influenced peace or violence.

Buddhists, especially Tibetan Buddhists and Hindus, led by Ghandi, may be the most peaceful.

[QC]

21. The Buddhist/Hindu civil war in Sri Lanka has killed more than 50k.

A good many Zen masters played roles in Japan's military aggressions over the years. And Islam did not become the domiant religion in a third of the world because it offered a good fringe benefits package.

All religions have been violent at some times and peaceful at others.

[ultraist]

27. Ok, but we are discussing what religion seems to create the most violence

I still doubt that Tibetan Buddhists ever started a war.

[QC]

31. Tibet was once the center of an empire.

And Genghis Khan was a convert to Tibetan Buddhism. (He kept right on conquering after that conversion.)

[tx_dem41]

35. You're kidding, right? n/t

[toddaa]

42. Dalai Lama infatuation

We all love the Dalai Lama. Really, we do. But don't turn your Western romantic infatuation with the Dalai Lama into some sort of "noble savage" Eastern mysticism mythology. Tibet, China, and Arabia have been in constant territorial conflict for hundreds of years. The teachings of the Buddha are just as noble and peaceful as those of Christ. His followers, like those of Christ, were just as power hungry and bloodthirsty. Just because a religion teaches "blessed are the peacemakers" or the "four noble truths" doesn't mean its followers won't have different ideas.

[ultraist]

45. Not hardly dude. I am not religious

[Ladyhawk]

11. Today, the Abrahamic religions--those that use some version of the OT...

...as scripture--are quite violent. The Old Testament is full of violence, so it's no wonder that Christians, Jews and Muslims have violent sects.

I also agree with Walt Starr that our species has always been violent. Religion just gives the more violent among us an excuse to act out.

[ultraist]

15. Religions influence worldviews

Yes, but if you consider that Rome had a polytheistic religion and that they were at war with Christians, I think it's reasonable to infer that religion is very much connected to war.

Furthermore, oftentimes wars are waged so one religion can dominate over another. This is where the term religiophobe was derived from.

[Ladyhawk]

49. Yes, good points. Religion has become a reason for war...

...as well as an excuse. The Crusades are another case in point. I also fear that what we're seeing now is also at least partially driven by Christian fundamentalism, since the fundies seem to particularly like the idea of converting those "dirty Muslims."

A whackjob fundy confronted me at a Peace Vigil and told me that the war was OK since so many Iraqis were "coming to Christ." When I told her I was an atheist, she laid hands on me. I came *this close* to losing my self-control.

[ultraist]

62. OH SHIT!

Did she smack you on the forehead and say, "be healed, in the name of Jesus!' Or start speaking in tongues? I've seen that too.

whoooa buddy, it's very interesting to witness.

I agree, there is most certainly an undercurrent of Christians vs. Muslims in Bush's Iraq war. "Spread freedom and spread Christianity."

[Osamasux]

16. The Old Testament is in large part a composite of various

'stories' from different cultures. By inference, many/most of them were violent. Zealots, fundamentalists and morons come in all flavors. What they have in common is that they are zealots, fundamentalists and morons and they are prone to violence.

[leftofthedial]

17. It would seem likely

have to do some arithmetic, but it's a long and consistent history of greed, intolerance, murder, rapciousness, cruelty and bad manners.

[CindyDale]

19. A really interesting question

I had to look this up, and the answer is surprising.

Although the Christian religion has the record for the longest-lasting genocide (against the Jews throughout most of the last milleneum), atheists (Communists) have the record for the most lives taken. I doubt that as many people were killed in all of history by any culture as are attributed to the Soviets and Chinese in the 20th century:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide0.htm

So there you go.

[ultraist]

30. So the measure is how many were killed? Why not then the # of wars?

Or the length of the war? I'm not necessarily disagreeing your your measure, but is it the only way to measure this? That site, btw, didn't take into account the Crusades or other wars. It just listed the longest and the one with the most deaths.

excerpt from your link:

A individual's greatest enemy appears to be their own federal government. One source estimates that "Nearly 170 million people probably have been murdered by governments in this <20th> century; over four-times those killed in combat in all international and domestic wars during the same years." 3

Mass murder and genocide in recent years have involved: The execution of individuals who have simply decided to change their religion,
Mass murder of followers of a minority religion by members of a dominant religion,
Mass murder of followers of one faith group by others of the same religion.
Mass murder and genocide of an identifiable group for a variety of reasons.

[CindyDale]

36. It was an arbitrary decision on my part

to search for death statistics in response to this question, but I agree that it could be interesting to research other facts related to the question, too.

[The Magistrate]

20. No, Sir

It is indeed hard to argue the modern world is more violent than the ancient, or the tribal existances at the dawn of history.

Primitive and ancient wars involved a much higher proportion of the peoples engaged as casualties than do modern ones, and this was raised formerly even higher by the custom of enslaving the conquered. Slavery, as the Spartans in particular recognized with a commendable clear-sightedness, is a perpetual exercise of violence against the subjugated.

There are many more people alive in the modern era than in the primitive and ancient times, and so the numbers of dead in wars are larger, but that is not the true measure of the intensity of violence. If two armies numbering forty thousands each engage with swords and spears, and thirty thousand of one and fifteen thousands of the other are dead by nightfall, is that not more violent, and certainly more deadly, than if two armies numbering a hundred fifty thousands engage, and at the end of a week fifty thousands of one and thirty thousands of the other are dead?

[roguevalley]

22. In terms of the aggression, destruction and the stamping out of

anything or anyone that was opposite of their goals, I consider it the worst thing that ever happened to this planet. You will note that I have not included Jesus or his message in this assessment. I consider the form of Christianity -with notable exceptions- to be antithetical to Jesus' message and therefore something different and separate. Therefore, it is the worst thing EVER to happen to planet earth. As a Christian, that was a hard conclusion to reach but I feel its true.

[mermaid]

23. You Also Forgot To Mention The Salem Witch Trials!

VERY bloody history!

And if the fundies get their way, more blood to come!

Because we GLBT people are next!

Right to life, my ass!

[Igel]

24. I find no persuasive evidence that Xian societies have been more

or less bloody than others. As a percentage of population. I mean, if your tribe amounts to 50 battle-ready men (+ non-combatants), and the opposing tribe is 60 battle-ready men (+ non-combatants), it certainly can't be as bloody as if the two armies are 3 million and 4 million, respectively. So specifically Christian wars spilled more blood than many preceding wars (but not those following), but probably not as a percentage of battle-ready men.

Mesoamerican tribes had no trouble conquering, nor did the Incas in the Andes. The Golden Horde was noted for its brutality.

Nobody but Salafists and wannabe Salafists believe that Islam did not spread by the sword, in short order, from Pakistan to Morocco, and beyond. Usually by conquest and then subjugation of the population. (And let's not forget where the Spanish and Portuguese picked up black slavery ... black slaves, and white slaves, where actively traded for many centuries before Portugal found their source.) We even know when the "peaceful spread of Islam" was stopped in S. France and near Vienna (and the rough numbers of those peacefull spreading Islam with weapons). I find it hard to believe that this conquest is somehow approved of (when the victors in the area wrote the history), and the Reconquista and Crusades are entirely evil. (The Crusades probably killed more Europeans trying to get to Palestine than they did Muslims or civilians.)

Bantu spread from near Cameroon to the Cape of Good Hope in the course of many centuries, but it wasn't likely to not have involved the genocide (whether cultural or extinction of the genetic lines) of hundreds of tribes. The expansion just happened to coincide with the introduce of more widespread iron ... good for plows, and weapons. The Khoe-San are vastly reduced in numbers, and in territory as a result ... not by the hands of the white devils.

The Scythians and Sarmatians wreaked havoc and caused lots of grief when the spread into Eastern Europe. Not Persians, but their relatives; the Sarmatians descendents are the Ossetians. The Turks are from up not too far from Mongolia, and I doubt the inhabitants of Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkey gladly welcomed them and committed seppuku to provide them with empty land.

If you look at a linguistic map of China, you find many pockets of non-Chinese all over the south, up the valleys; they aren't interlopers, and didn't retreat there because they liked the Chinese so much. Their kind originally inhabited all of S. China. They were conquered, and largely assimilated. As were most of the indigenous population of Taiwan.

One can say that the Austronesians at least moved into virgin territory. But once there, they weren't always happy. The Maori wiped out the Moriori (with a bit of unwitting assistance from the Europeans).

Now all this assimilation wasn't necessarily by conquest. But seldom does a new dominant tribe move in and oust an established tribe without some friction. Since the population was much smaller, the wars didn't need to be as bloody. (Let's remember that Stalin's 30 million was when the USSR's population was 120 million or less.)

Quite a bloody history we humans have. And not one of the incidents above were committed by even the most nominal of Christians.

[ultraist]

28. What about the Holocaust or the 3 Crusades?

In response to your comment: "Quite a bloody history we humans have. And not one of the incidents above were committed by even the most nominal of Christians".

"We must inoculate our children against militarism, by educating them in the spirit of pacifism," he said. "And Ghandi had a similar vision. He said, 'If we are to reach real peace in the world, we shall have to begin with the children.' " --Einstein

For Muslim Cleric Jamal Rahman, it's very important to discern between essence and behavior. "If they ask about Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, yes, his behavior is evil," Rahman said. But he warns against demonizing people. "Because if we say the essence is evil, then we begin to judge the grand artist, who made this person."
http://www.komotv.com/news/printstory.asp?id=23909

I think Christianity has and does demonize people and contributes to war.

[Igel]

53. I can quote a few Xian authors that push peace and acceptance,

too. It's not the few, it's the many.

Xianity demonizes people ... so does Islam ... Hindutva was no walk in the part, and India doesn't have a perfect history when it comes to peace ... adherents of Shintoism haven't exactly been the bringers of peace and light ...

I don't consider the Holocaust to be a very Xian act. Nor do I consider McVeigh to be Xian. It's a weasly claim to make, but I can call myself a Jewish Zulu princess of Burushaski descent if I want to, but it don't make it so. Many of the medieval popes were as venal as they come, power before religion. Stalin was Orthodox only when he suddenly feared for his dictatorship and needed Orthodox support; labels are squishy. Many people do many things in the name of religion; some do them sincerely, some not so sincerely. I look at the follow-through. Many of act exactly as they would if they were atheist.

Mesoamerica had a much nicer history than N. America (although not great). The Catholic priests wanted to convert, not kill, unlike the soldiers; some Quechua masses I have on CD shore up this point. We of separation of church and state weren't nearly as nice. (And as far as the decimation of the indigenous population, nothing on earth apart from continued quarantine could have prevented much of it, whether it was the Europeans or the Asians that established a significant presence in the US.)

The Crusades were bloody; the unruly lot of them killed a lot of civilians. They were stupidly thought out, with lots of needless death all 'round, and the Xians couldn't keep from squabbling in order to hold the territory for more than a century; but in principle they're no more wrong than the Arab conquest of Jerusalem was. It was a silly attempt at a Reconquista after the invasion of one part of Europe was stalled. But we enlightened folk don't dwell on the anti-Xian massacres in various middle eastern cities over the ages.

I don't find most Xians through history to be any worse or better than the general mass of homicidal lunatics.

[megatherium]

55. Don't blame Christianity

which was nonviolent through the third century. There is little in the New Testament that "demonizes people and contributes to war". Indeed, what we find in the NT are stories such as the parable of the Good Samaritan, where Jesus explains that even hated minorities (in his day the Samaritans) should be considered to be our neighbors. The true spirit of Christianity was understood by the abolitionists who convinced Britain to ban slavery and blockade the slave trade at sea.

And don't look towards Islam for tolerance and peace. To this day, blasphemy and apostasy (from Islam) is a capital offense in a number of Muslim countries. They execute homosexuals in countries such as Iran. I'm gay, I don't want to hear anyone excusing them because "it's their religion and it's OK". It isn't OK.

I don't mean to in turn demonize anyone. As an academic, I have worked with a variety of Muslims (Arabs as well as Persians), secular or devout, and have called them friends. I sure as hell don't support our lovely little war in Iraq, or the possible war in Iran. But I will call anyone on their intolerance.

[ultraist]

63. Christians say gays are sinners who will burn in hell

and back it up with bible quotes. Lots of punitive and hateful acts are born from such an attitude.

The large majority of those that hate gays and commit hate crimes are so called Christians. Fortunately, we don't have a full blown theocracy, YET.

[QC]

67. *Some* Christians say that.

And some of us Christians are gay ourselves. Broad brushes are not very useful in discussions like this.

[megatherium]

70. you have a point!

My own church (the Episcopal Church USA) is dealing with this issue.

But please be advised that there are many Christians who are supportive of gay people; they form a substantial minority in several of the mainline churches (Episcopal, Presbyterian, Catholic), and they are now a majority in certain other mainline churches (I believe the Congregationalists and the United Church for Christ is in this category now). There are many tough battles ahead for the churches, but I think real progress is being made.

[Rex]

29. War and death have always been a part of 'empire building'

A mark of how inferior we are as a species.

[ultraist]

32. exactly, and Christianity has been used to gain control

Remember what happened in France with Napoleon?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

34. No.

BTW, Hitler, and Stalin were not Christians. Again, I'm going to have to say no.

[iconoclastic cat]

37. What about those wild and crazy Khans?

Pile of skulls, anyone?

[Kinkistyle]

38. No. Not more violent, but JUST AS violent as any other.

Christian society has been no more nor less than any other human civilization that has existed. Japanese, Chinese, Incan, Babylonian, Norse, Grecian etc.. has just as many deaths, wars and tragedies. The "Christian" period is just the one that we are most familiar with in part due to its relative recent rise to power.

[Lindacooks]

39. How about the Spanish Inquisition?

The Spanish Inquisition was the Inquisition acting in Spain under the control of the Kings of Spain. This Inquisition was the result of the reconquest of Spain from the Muslims and the policy of converting Spanish Jews and Muslims to Christianity. The Inquisition was an important tool in enforcing the limpieza de sangre ("cleanliness of blood") against descendants of converted Jews or Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

[tx_dem41]

40. Insert obligatory Monty Python reference here.

[Lindacooks]

43. LOL! I had to fight to keep from typing that.

NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition...

[ultraist]

46. Christian wars

http://www.white-history.com/hwr43.htm
Chapter 43 : In the Name of God - The Christian Wars

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is quoted as saying that he had come to bring the sword, to "set father against son and mother against daughter" (Luke 12:53) and called on his followers to "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me" (Luke 19:27).

These words have, in the history of Christianity, been enacted in bloody reality many times - starting when an important political rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church took on a religious slant - leading to the split in European Christendom between Catholic and Protestant. This split sparked off a series of religious wars which were ultimately to be responsible for the death of nearly a third of the entire White race.

[megatherium]

59. Why are you quoting a racist tract?

www.white-history.com is a racist web site (do a little googling and you see). I would hardly trust their perspective on Christianity. I think these passages are not being quoted in context -- it's clear from the rest of the NT that Jesus did not order his followers to take up swords against anyone. The first three centuries of Christianity were nonviolent. It was the Christians who ended the gladiatorial games (according to the legend, a monk named Telemachus wandered into the arena during a sword fight to ask that the fighting be stopped, but got killed for his trouble; the Romans were ashamed and stopped the games forthwith).

[ultraist]

64. well, isn't that what a lot of fundies believe?

[megatherium]

69. please answer my question --

why are you quoting a history of Christianity contained in a racist web site? I wouldn't expect white-history.com to be an accurate reflection of what Christians believe, or an accurate source for the history of Christianity either.

[tx_dem41]

71. I'm stunned that someone would use such a source to back up

a personal agenda. Stormfront uses this white-history.com site often in support of their racist policies. If you have the stomach, read the chapter on the Nazis' Final Solution. You will learn that the responsiblity for it lies with "International Jewry". A brief snip...

"International Jewry had however publicly and openly declared war on Nazi Germany, and the Nazis therefore regarded Jews as a hostile combatant group of special significance. "

Its truly disgusting that such an anti-Semitic and racist source is being cited on this forum. I would only hope that its use was somehow inadvertent.

[countbad]

47. Do Kid Yourself.....Every System is Exploited

I think some people are under the impression that if the world only got rid of religion that violence would magically end. That is a pipe dream.

Besides being a religion, Christianity is a socio-political power structure and like every power structure in history, evil people have abused it. Any power structure, religion or political ideology has potential to develop despots and oppressors. If the world had no religion, people would still find reasons to kill and oppress others. Unfortunately its in our nature.

Do you think the peoples of the New World were oppressed because they were "pagans" or because Europeans saw technologically underdeveloped peoples whom they could easily exploit?


WooHooo First Post!!!!

[makhno]

48. Welcome to DU

And a great first post it is. Methinks a few posters on this thread confuse correlation with causation.

[Llewlladdwr]

50. Ah sweet!

Nothing like a good Christian bashing thread to liven things up!

[Llewlladdwr]

51. Seriously though...

for my money you'd have a hard time beating Communism for sheer level of deaths perpetrated. They're explicitly atheistic, by the way.

[shadowknows69]

52. I think we'll hold the record for a long time n/t

[misanthrope]

54. I think...

...human society is history's most violent.

Savagery and barbarism know no bounds of any sort.

[countbad]

56. Exactly

No matter what the system, the cruel and self-serving will find ways to exploit it. If Europe was united under atheism instead of Christianity, their history would be just as bloody. A large percentage of humans just can't resist their own greed and narcissism. Put them in any system be it atheism, buddhism, Christian, Democratic, Communist, Tribal and they will find a way to corrupt it. That is why although true communism is noble in its intentions, it could never happen in the real world. Eventually a Stalin would arise and sieze power. I think European technological superiorty is more to blame for these atrocities then a relgion that says to "love your enemies, bless them that curse you..."(Isnt it ironic how many who claim to be Christians ignore lines like that one).

Unfortunately alot of human being are just a bunch of a-holes!

[barb162]

57. No, not at all. Try Genghis Khan and the Mongols. He killed a

substantial part of the European population up to and east of Vienna in the Middle Ages. The Mongols basically killed everything in sight. Some of the Chinese rulers were pretty bad too, often descendants of the Mongols. Before Christianity, people were always killing each other too. Think Romans, think Alexander the Great, the Persians, etc. Back then it was just everyone wanted everyone else's land and treasures.

There is no one thing for which people will kill. Sometimes it's straight old power/greed, sometimes it is religion, sometimes someone just wants the land, sometimes it is certain movements, like nationalism, colonialism, sometimes boredom or the need to prove manhood, ego, etc. (Alexander had to get more land than his father Philip conquered)

[barb162]

58. and someone might want want to take a look at what the Japs did

to China, the Phillipines, etc in the 1930s and 1940s, read the "Rape of Nanking" by Iris Chang (??? not sure of her last name) for starters. The Japanese still won't admit what they did...they are one sick society and I understand they still won't let that book be published in Japan. I think the Japanese soldiers made Hitler's SS look kinda like Boy Scouts

[Lydia Leftcoast]

75. However, there are plenty of Japanese authors who have written about

the Nanjing Massacre, and it is debated in the Japanese-language press. One of these authors, Katsuichi Honda, has made a career of exposing atrocities during World War II, making numerous trips to China to interview survivors, and a group of teachers and professors is campaigning for better coverage in school and college textbooks.

But if you think how hard it would be to get an honest portrayal of the Vietnam War into an American public school textbook, you'll understand what they're up against. Look at how right wingers still went after John Kerry for his exposure of American atrocities in Vietnam.

The same is true in Japan. For every WWII veteran who admits to participating in mass slaughters or torture of prisoners and civilians, there's another veteran to send him death threats.

Iris Chang's book was not published in Japan because while its basic mesage is true (the Japanese killed people by the hundreds of thousands indiscriminately in China), she made enough factual errors in other areas to suggest sloppy research--as American academics pointed out. Looking at her book, Japanese publishers probably thought, "We have books on this topic already, and this one is full of factual errors that anyone reasonably acquainted with Asian history would catch."

This does not mean that the story of the Nanjing Massacre is unknown in Japan. It is, but some people choose to ignore it.

[Onlooker]

66. Well, the answer is clearly yes

While it's true that throughout history, every civilization has committed some barbaric events, I haven't seen one post in this thread that suggests another religious ethic has led to such a long swath of murder. Yes, you can point to eras in other parts of the world that gave rise to 100 years or so of imperialist murder, but certainly in terms of numbers killed and willingness to keep on doing it, nations imbued with Christianity seem to be tops. Now when you narrow down these crimes to just the sort of depraved murder that people like King Leopold and Hitler engaged in, I think it's even harder to defend Christian culture. But, hey, we have the best art, the best science, and our depraved leaders have fostered a weak, but not powerless, counterculture that favors respect for humanity.

[tom_paine]

68. All religions are equally human in this regard. no onecan be singled out

From Shaka Zulu to Mao Tse Tung and Tammerlane, who share equally in the brutality category.

It is considered by scholars today that South Asia area is STILL a desert because of the complete and total distrection Tammerlane laid on it in the 14th Century.

HUMANS are violent, it has nothing to do with religion, although religion is a prime motivator...no one can be singled out.

And yes, Christianity has done more good than most, but as much bad as all.

[cags]

76. The Dark Side of Christian History by Helen Ellerbee Great Book

[Trajan]

77. Im with Walt on this ....

To single out Christianity as the most potent historical force for death and destruction is absolutely wrong .... It is not true ...

That being said, one can state with absolute certainty: Christianity, and it's theological philosophies, not only did NOT counter those primal urges which compel men to destroy or make war, but in many cases cultivated those urges by associating theological goals with causes of war, and used them to their own advantage to promote ecclesiastical development ...

I can state unequivocally: These religions many times do nothing to restrict those cultural, biological, ecclesiastical or economical motives from becoming violent human action .... they in fact, at times, support such inhumane actions, primarily because those theological organizations have something to gain from such actions ....

As a fervent atheist, I reject the notion that christianity OR islam OR judaism OR buddhism are the 'cause' of evil human nature ...

Human beings are animals, acting out from millions of years of evolutionary psychological development which enhanced our survivability in nature; those same early 'reptilian' neural structures which exist in the feral creatures of the wild exist in each of us today .... It is what connects us to all other quadrupedal lifeforms on earth ... Those instincts are burned into us at birth, and, there is no escaping them; but there is the opportunity to reduce them through civilizing human beings into a humane culture ....

In the end: Human nature (real) trumps false notions of absolute morality based on theological precepts of a divine moral source (unreal) ... Phony religious moralism pays lip service to considerate humanity and humble pacifism, but does nothing to actuate those goals .... These religions are moral in word, until the torches are lit and the swords are brandished, then true real human nature is revealed ....

Morality is learned culturally ..... only culturally ..... Only through teaching that humanity must be respected ABOVE ALL divine and theological precepts will men be able to resist those urges once and for all ....

Secular humanism is probably the only road to true, enlightened morality .... imho .... Yet SH is what is despised most by fundamentalist forces in the world .... Tis a pity ...

You have to be carefully taught ....