>When Christianity became a thing, in the first and second century AD, it spread peacefully
>Jesus was a man who always promoted peace (to the point of being called a cuck by some on this website)
>in a matter of centuries, Christianity had peacefully spread through half of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.
>The only real case of Christianity being spread by the sword in Europe is the Teutonic order, and this is millennia after the time of Jesus, in an isolated area, that was as much men seeking power through military conquest.
>At the time of the Crusades, most of the populace was illiterate and did not have a grasp of the New Testament, and the case that the crusades were (at least initially) a defensive strike is extremely compelling.
>the later colonization of the world was primarily driven by mercantilism, and wealth, justified by a view of bringing civilization to lesser races. Religion was an afterthought. It is akin to saying Apple or Microsoft using China to build there shit is due to Christianity. By that time, society had advanced enough where economic factors were the main driving force, not religion.
Therefore, it can be said that the religion of Christianity, as defined by the New Testament, is inherently a mostly peaceful one, and the cases where Christians acted in a violent matter can be attributed to human factors.
>Islam at the very start, spread by the Sword. Muhammad himself conquered the Saudi Arabian Coasts, and when he died, his religious followers, in the name of Islam, invaded and conquered the Christian Byzantines, taking over all of the Mid-East and North Africa, and into Spanish Europe in mere decades. Contrast the conquering Islamic armies, who were literally the contemporaries of Muhammad, with that of Paul and the contemporaries of Christ, and the early Church who spread peacefully.
1/2
>>1418516
>Islamic armies reached all the way into central France before being beaten back. Europe, India, South East Asian, were all threatened with invasion and subjugation
>Timur who literally called himself the "sword of Islam" killed an estimated 5% of the worlds population at the time, and his empire went on to invade India and spread Islam by the sword there.
>Fact: Islam has mostly been spread by the sword; Christianity has mostly spread naturally.
It can be said that the Religion of Islam, as defined by the Quran and Muhammad, has an inherent violent nature to it, as evidenced by its actions from its inception, and that the violent actions of its followers can reasonably be attributed to the religion itself, rather than human attributes
I am an atheist. I think Christianity is pretty shitty, and if i had to be religious id pick an east asian one. But in comparison to Islam, Christianity is the clear winner, no contest. There is no good reason to support Islam.
FACT: If Islam never happened, and Muhammad died as a baby, the Byzantines would never have been invaded as they were, and the middle east would still be Christian to this day, perhaps even still Byzantine. The World would never have this great divide and conflict that exists today. This is entirely the fault of Islam.
>Christianity spread peacefully
Right click, hide
>>1418543
In its first couple of hundred years, yes, absolutely.
>>1418548
You mean in the years before it had any significant influence in the world.
>>1418563
>Christian Roman Empire
>not significant
>>1418566
The Christian Roman Empire came AFTER the first couple of hundred years. Since they already ruled the world they obviously didn't need to conquer much; instead they went with the persecution and criminalization of paganism.
>>1418571
What Christian army conquered Rome?
>>1418587
Did you read the second sentence of my post?
>>1418590
Rome wasnt Christian inititially you retard, it became Christian through natural methods of spreading peacefully. Again, thats how Christianity spread in its first 500 years or so. No conquering armies in the name of Christianity. For the rest read the OP.
>>1418598
>it became Christian through natural methods of spreading peacefully. Again, thats how Christianity spread in its first 500 years or so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire
>Gratian took steps to repress pagan worship; this policy may have been influenced by his chief advisor, Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan.[1][66][67] In 382, Gratian appropriated the income of pagan priests and the Vestal Virgins, confiscated the possessions of the priestly colleges and ordered the Altar of Victory removed again.[69][70] The colleges of pagan priests also lost all their privileges and immunities. Gratian declared that all of the pagan temples and shrines were to be confiscated by the government and that their revenues were to be joined to the property of the royal treasury.
>The anti-paganism policies of Theodosius I began in 381, following the first few years of his reign over the Eastern Empire. Theodosius reiterated Constantine's ban on pagan sacrifice and haruspicy on pain of death. He pioneered the criminalisation of Magistrates who did not enforce the anti-pagan laws. He broke up some pagan associations and destroyed pagan temples.
>Between 389-391 he issued the infamous "Theodosian decrees," which established a practical ban on paganism;[74] visits to the temples were forbidden,[73][75] remaining pagan holidays were abolished, the Sacred fire of Vesta in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum was extinguished, the Vestal Virgins disbanded, auspices and witchcraft punished.
>In 392 he became emperor of the whole empire. From this moment till the end of his reign in 395, while pagans remained outspoken in their demands for toleration,[76][77] he authorized or participated in the killing of pagan priests, destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of reverence throughout the empire[78][79][80][81] and participated in actions by Christians against major Pagan sites.
>>1418598
God you're shit at reading comprehension.
>Since they already ruled the world they obviously didn't need to conquer much; instead they went with the persecution and criminalization of paganism.
What do you not get about this? You're right, they didn't invade Rome, but as soon as the new religion took over they began to persecute everyone else and from that point on they were as violent as anyone else.
You're trying to ignore all of Christianity's history beyond the first few hundred years. The fact is that both Islam and Christianity spread as much by the sword as proselytism. Christians and Muslims both invaded and destroyed other civilizatios, persecuted other religions and fought religiously motivated wars amongst themselves. You can't just dismiss Christian violence by saying 'religion was an afterthought'.
>>1418598
Christians were only around 5% of the empire when it was declared the state religion. After they took power they made paganism illegal and destroyed their temples. Not that pagans treated Christians much better, but don't pretend it was peaceful.
>>1418614
Jesus was a carpenter and the most violent He ever gets is flipping tables at the temple.
Mohammad was a warlord and there are portions of the Koran that literally take place in warzones because FATAL VIOLENCE IS INTRINSIC TO ISLAM.
>>1418623
>*7-10% of the empire
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Roman_Culture/Constantine_and_early_Christianity
>>1418619
Yes, Islam was violent from the beginning and Christianity became violent later. So fucking what? They both ended up the same way for most of their history anyway. From the 4th to 17th centuries Christianity was as violent as Islam ever was. Islam has existed and been violent from the 7th century to the present, so that basically leaves them both with 14 centuries of violence.
Again, you're just trying to ignore everything Christians have done since 300 AD.
>>1418628
And what does any of that have to do with what I said?
You're saying that Jesus was better than Mohamed? Sure, I agree. That's not what we're talking about.
>>1418633
Their early histories are significant because they reveal the different characters of the two faiths. The practices of the first Christians and Muslims are the product of faith at its most ideologically pure; before it becomes convoluted through sectarianism. On a fundamental level, Christianity is more peaceful than Islam and this is reflected both through their respective sacred writings and the behaviors of their first adherents.
>>1418619
It wasn't peaceful. Look up the Donatists.
Even before the Christian Roman Empire, Christians were known as destructive and suicidal zealots. They would attack pagan temples and kill priests with the intention of being martyred.
>>1418638
Yes we are talking about who is better, Jesus or Mohammad because the faiths these two men founded seek to essentially replicate their personalities in their disciples. Christians are called Christians because they try to live like Jesus Christ and Muslims seek to emulate the behavior of Mohammad. The fact that Jesus was a peaceful man and Mohammad was a violent man goes to the very heart of the division between Christian and Muslims to this day.
>>1418642
That kind of violent behavior misses the mark of the example Christ left for his disciples and therefore cannot be considered orthodox Christian behavior.
>>1418614
>You're trying to ignore all of Christianity's history beyond the first few hundred years. The fact is that both Islam and Christianity spread as much by the sword as proselytism. Christians and Muslims both invaded and destroyed other civilizatios, persecuted other religions and fought religiously motivated wars amongst themselves. You can't just dismiss Christian violence by saying 'religion was an afterthought'.
Your so fucking wrong its laughable, your trying to say that because a multicultural society didn't work in the ancient world that christianity is now violent? Christianity became the majority through peaceful means and after that occurs, the rest is up to human nature (including the so-called wars in christianitys name. Only the Teutonic order is a true example of that). But the religion itself is not inherently violent, and fundamentally, it doesnt teach to convert by the sword, like Islam does. Sure it, doesnt play nice when other religions are present in the same society, but that is true for many cultures and im not saying Christiainity is perfect, far from it.
But there's a big gap between Christianity and Islam when it comes to theologically-condoned violence
>The fact is that both Islam and Christianity spread as much by the sword as proselytism.
This is simply not true at all. Christianity spread through the entire Pagan Roman empire peacefully, Islam invaded it forcibly.
>>1418516
>Roman patriarchate being Christianity after 1054.
>Any event done by the heretics being relevant.
>>1418644
>Jesus was a peaceful man
We don't even know anything about the real historical Yeshua.
Mythical Christ ≠ Historical Yeshua
It is quite likely Yeshua was put to death for inciting open rebellion against the Roman establishment. That he failed and was put to death before achieving anything merely means he was incompetent, not that he was peaceful.
>>1418648
>Christianity spread through the entire Pagan Roman empire peacefully
You can't be serious.
>>1418653
The point is that the Gospels portray Jesus as the Prince of Peace and the Gospels are the foundational texts of Christianity and therefore Christianity is fundamentally a peaceful religion.
>>1418623
The Christians were concentrated in key cities like Constantinople and Rome, and other places like Anatolia. If you include the whole Empire, obviously places like Brittania etc. were still pagan.
Anyway, you didn't disprove my point, it was still within a peaceful and legal means, certainly not an invading army.
Also, your flatout wrong, Christians were persecuted by pagans, the pagans were not exempt from normal human attributes. Christianity caused much societal unrest amongst the pagans. That doesn't mean that a religion is violent because of a culture clash.
>>1418647
That kind of "violent behaviour" was the norm until the Council of Carthage in the 4th century, and only because a large number of influential clergy in the Church were rather cowardly and faced loss of power and face if they kept their warmongering stance.
Up until then, martyrdom by ANY means was held to be a Christian virtue, and to that end, Christians performed suicidal actions such as turning themselves in to authorities and saying they had performed treason, attacking pagan temples and killing priests, purposefully insulting magistrates during court proceedings, etc. Even influential Church Fathers such as Ireneaus largely supported this "martyrdom at any cost", who wrote that "A Christian's death-day is actually his birthday."
>>1418640
Sure. Christianity started off as a much better religion than Islam. Then as soon as it came to a position of power in the world it became a violent, fanatical mess. It only stopped being violent, in the West at least, when the Western world stopped basing everything around religion. It didn't revert back to its original 'purity', it just fell out of fashion.
My problem with you is you're trying to defend Christianity while attacking Islam because the former used to be better than the latter before the latter even existed, ignoring that for the vast majority of history they've both been just as bad. Jesus might have been nicer than Mohammad, early Christians might have been more peaceful than early Muslims, but in the end Christianity and Islam for the most part were equally murderous ideologies.
Praise early Christians if you want, but don't act like there's something inherently better about Christianity as it has existed throughout history.
>>1418676
Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of Christianity and His actions are the ruler by which a Christian is measured. You can cite all the sinners you want but the Gospels depict how a Christian is supposed to behave and when man fails to live up to that standard they have only themselves to blame.
>>1418697
It doesn't matter what your fables say: early Christians demonstrated themselves just as violent and destructive as the early Muslims.
If you had actually bothered to learn even some bit of history instead of coming out of Cuckchan to proselytize.
>>1418680
>don't act like there's something inherently better about Christianity as it has existed throughout history.
There is and it is found through comparing the New Testament to the Koran. The New Testament does not have battlefield scenes because the New Testament offers a life where the battle has already been won.
>>1418671
>death penalty and confiscation of property for any kind of pagan worship at all
>ISIS tier destruction of temples
>peaceful
>Also, your flatout wrong
Reread what I said.
>>1418516
>Islam, at its beginning, was complimented with science, philosophy, good economy, art, sophisticated society, and sustainable governing and thus is a superior religion
>Christianity, at its beginning, was not and thus is an inferior religion
This is how stupid you sound.
Chances are you can't list out the five pillars or tell me the key foundations of Isma'ilism and Sufism, yet here you are running your mouth over Islam. I bet you've never talked to a Muslim either. Protip: keep your mouth shut if you don't know anything about a topic.
Other protip: If you want to look at history with a bias, go back to /pol/ or tumblr.
>>1418633
This is false on every level. The Most violent episodes of Christian History can easily be attributed to other factors, unlike Islam.
>Crusades
Defensive war, initially, and waged by soldiers who were illiterate and had little understanding of the teachings of Jesus, only through what the pope had fed them. Deceived into thinking that if they fight for the holy land they can buy there way into heaven, something which is NOT a part of Christianity, and only made its way into it in the medieval ages because of illiteracy and no education. Compare that to the Islamic groups of today who all read the Quran and are very very religious.
>Colonialism of the world
described in the OP, attributed to mercantilism and pursuit of wealth, not Christianity. Also, the western colonialism was not even bad when comparing to how other societies colonized, like the Japanese
There are only some fringe cases, like the Teutonic order, that occured over a thousand years after Jesus' time, and hence is not an accurate picture of the religion, at times when the populations were not well educated on these things.
The Ottoman empire was more secular than religious and it kept the radical Islam subjugated, but once the Ottomans were toppled, the real religion of Islam has reared its ugly violent head.
>>1418704
No they were demonstrably not as violent as early Muslims. Disorderly conduct is not the same as warfare.
>>1418676
Apple and Oranges my friend, you cannot compare a few nutcases like that (which are probably overblown, its not like its easy to verify ancient sources) to the solid invasion of the half the civilised world, something which sprang up ONLY due to the emergence of a new organized, violent, religion.
Christianity definitely spreads its "meme", no one is doubting that, and it sure caused its own problems, but it was never as inherently violent as Islam has been.
>>1418653
hahaha.
It literally doesn't matter if he even existed. All that matters is what is written down in the bible, and thats what the first century church followed. The first century church mostly had not met Jesus, they followed his disciples and Paul.
And in the Bible he is a peacefull man and thats what the religion espouses.
>>1418706
Christians didn't just ignore the Old Testament you know. If Christianity was based on nothing more than the teaching of Jesus I'm sure it would be great, but you're completely deluded if you think it is.
What you're basically doing is ignoring the reality of Christianity in practice while idealizing what it should be, but hasn't been since its early days. You're saying Christianity is better than Islam because you're imagining a perfect form of Christianity completely detached from the historic reality. Christians and Muslims were both murderous fanatics, but you think one is better than the other because they have a nicer book.
>>1418713
>attributed to mercantilism and pursuit of wealth
Why can't the same be said about Islam?
Do you really think the Caliphs planned their invasions upon where it would be best to spread Islam? That's an idiotic double standard. Like every other civilization in existence, the caliphates sought to exploit economic fortunes and the opportunities thereof.
>>1418713
Every competent historian agrees that the crusades were religiously motivated and were in no way a defensive war. Saying that the crusaders weren't 'true' Christians or some shit is basically the exact same as people claiming ISIS aren't 'true' Muslims. The crusades were pioneered by the Papacy and the priesthood.
Colonialism, especially in its first phase in the Americas where it did by far the most damage, always had a highly religious aspect. You can't ignore this just because other motivations existed. You could ignore most Muslim violence after the initial conquests in the exact same way.
You're also completely ignoring countless other acts of Christian violence, such as the European Wars of Religion (no internal conflicts in Islam ever came close to this), the Cathar Crusade, the Frankish persecution of pagans, the continuous persecution and murder of 'heretics', the religious motivations behind persecutions of Jews, etc.
You're a hypocrite.
>>1418717
>killing pagan priests and worshippers
>trying to dismiss it as "disorderly conduct"
This is why you can't have a conversation with a Christcuck
>>1418751
Not that guy but your post (or posts) sounds really butthurt and makes me want to disagree with you.
>Every competent historian agrees that the crusades were religiously motivated
>ever using "every" to proclaim your opinion is the mass consensus of a controversial topic.
That delicious irony in complaining about muh true scotsman in the same post where you point out his true scotsman belief in "real" christianity. Multiple historians have argued that over and over. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them any less a historian. This is just as false as the Anon's statement that the pope who deceived the crusaders was never part of Christianity.
Also, he never openly denies that religion was not involved in the crusades (as he adds it was manipulated); but instead makes the point that most of it can be attributed to other factors like mercantilism and expansionary beliefs.
He does make a mistake in only seeing the expansionary spirit of the west though. As Islam was a sort of Arabic Nationalist fury which drove expansion of their interests through war.
But then again, this is far off from the point he was originally making about Christianity spreading through peaceful conversion.
>>1418762
>one-off murders (assuming they even occurred)
>organized conquest
These are not comparable.
>>1418713
>Compare that to the Islamic groups of today who all read the Quran and are very very religious.
The religion is essential to the Islamism, but so are the political factors and identity. Many Islamist groups, according to former Islamists, lure recruits using grievances from history. Sykes-Picot, unconditional support of Israel from the west, keeping troops in Arabia after the Gulf War, Bosnian genocide, Iraq War, drones, collateral damage, etc. Bin Laden said some of these were the main reasons behind 9/11.
Political points and bloody propaganda are often used to convince Muslims that there is a conspiracy against them, and compel them to perform violent actions to establish a 'safe' and expanding muslim state.
It may seem strange, but a lot of Islamists don't know shit about the quran. Many casual muslims with empty lives get emotional over what they see as atrocities against their people and want to take radical action. when a violent interpretation of Islam provides a 'solution' that justifies radical action, they mindlessly devote themselves to it. and they find meaning in their dumb lives.
This accounts for many 'lone wolves' and isis members have reputations of being terrible muslims -- being gay, watching a bunch of porn, drinking alcohol, having premarital sex, etc. Apparently there was a man who got arrested at the airport trying to join isis- he was found with a new copy of 'islam for dummies'.
>>1418844
There's a widespread consensus that the crusades were religious wars and were not 'defensive'. They were invasions of a foreign land that had been conquered centuries ago. They were not aimed at the political power-bases of the Islamic world, nor at the parts that actually might have threatened Christendom. At most, the first crusade was justified by claims to be defending Byzantium (not Western Christendom), which was quickly overshadowed by a quest to take Jerusalem.
This is a widespread consensus that you'll see in any book on the crusades other than a few Christian apologists, hardly competent historians.
>>1418516
Since nobody pointed this out yet: The conquests of early caliphates can hardly be classified as "spreading islam by sword", those were wars for land pure and simple, the islamization of those territories didn's begin until a few centuries later and the Umayyads weren't even hiding the fact they didn't like people getting converted to islam since that meant lesser tax revenue to the state
>Giving actions and events throughout history simple, one sentence reasons
>Hitler was evil!
>Hitler was good!
>The Crusades were entirely religiously motivated by good-hearted men of God
>The Crusades were entirely motivated by secular powerhungry elites wanting more land and a way to get rid of troublesome sons
It's dumb. Historical events have a variety of causes that all coalesce.
>>1418516
>Therefore, it can be said that the religion of Christianity, as defined by the New Testament, is inherently a mostly peaceful one, and the cases where Christians acted in a violent matter can be attributed to human factors.
>It can be said that the Religion of Islam, as defined by the Quran and Muhammad, has an inherent violent nature to it, as evidenced by its actions from its inception, and that the violent actions of its followers can reasonably be attributed to the religion itself, rather than human attributes.
More like
>When Muslims commit acts of violence, they use their religion as an excuse, whereas when Christians do the same thing, they have to get creative and find other excuses for it.
>>1418631
>ninety percent of the empire [before the 4th century] was not Christian, and there is no evidence that Christianity could have continued to grow.
>It was the support of the emperor Constantine that transformed Christianity into a driving force in the Roman Empire.
>In 312, Constantine led an invasion of Italy and was triumphant.
>the support of the emperor Constantine that transformed Christianity into a driving force in the Roman Empire ... Constantine led an invasion of Italy and was triumphant.
>Stories began to emerge that victory was due to the God of the Christians.
>Another conflicting story reports that before the battle, Constantine saw a cross of light in the sky along with the words “By this sign you shall conquer.” “Christ himself then told Constantine to put Christian images on the shields.”
>Regardless of whether or not there is any truth to these stories, or if he had already planned to associate Christianity with his victory as a way to bring the religion under the state authority, this was the jumpstart that Christianity needed.
Religion of peas
>>1419026
>>1418738
The difference is Muhammad himself set out to do it, and there are verses in the Koran encouraging it
>entire planet conquered by Christians
just lately
>a few places were conquered by Muslims, all later conquered by Christians
>places under Muslim rule typically permitted to keep their own religion for longer than places under Christian rule
>Egypt was majority Christian for six centuries after it was conquered by Muslims
>southern Africa is majority Christian after only almost a century of Christian rule
>>1418844
>This is just as false as the Anon's statement that the pope who deceived the crusaders was never part of Christianity.
This is true though, and im not even a Christian. Back then they had this concept where you could literally pay the church money to forgive your sins, but also doing things like dyeing a crusaders death was a gaurantee ticket to heaven. Obviously this is no longer a part of Christianity, and it never was in the first place except when the population was illiterate on the subject.
You don't have to be a christian to be aware of what is Christian.
>>1418923
Your very quick to condemn the crusades yet theres no mention of how the Muslims conquered the Christian Byzantine area in the first place.
There isnt wide consensus, there is argument and debate, and if you read the OP, you will notice he said "initially" implying he was mostly talking about the First and Third Crusade.
And the Crusades were a retaliation from Islamic expansion. The Muslims had most of Spain at that point, had directly attacked Rome itself, were rapidly taking over the Byzantines, and the Crusade at the beginning were started over the Byzantines call for help. On top of this all, Christian Pilgrims were persecuted on their way to the Holy City, which was the nail in the coffin.
Your sounding like a Muslim apologist.
>>1418571
And the persecution of paganism is a bad thing?
Do you honestly think civilization would have progressed and spread to the extent that it has if Christians allowed pagans to exist and spread how they'd like?
>>1418909
There have been dumb susceptible people like this in every society throughout all of history. The difference is that Islam specifically provides that outlet for them to unleash terror and atrocities.
Christianity does not have that kind of "meme" extremist outlet that Islam does. Christianity can be very dogmatic, but it doesnt have the same kind of teaching that gets spread to the population like Islam does.
This is the whole point of this thread. The religion of Islam is fundamentally violent, like no other religion has been.
I would say that Christianity is perhaps a fairly violent religion in comparison to what (little) i know about eastern religions, and im no fan of Abrahamic faiths, but it seems to be considerably better than Islam.
>>1419086
>wanting to exist is wrong
>wanting to spread is wrong
You must hate Christianity more than paganism, surely?
>>1419086
>Do you honestly think civilization would have progressed and spread to the extent that it has if Christians allowed pagans to exist and spread how they'd like?
Yes. Do you have a reason to believe otherwise or are you just speaking out your ass?
>>1419024
>>When Muslims commit acts of violence, they use their religion as an excuse, whereas when Christians do the same thing, they have to get creative and find other excuses for it.
I would agree with this. The former openly acknowledges that the religion is compatible with acts of violence and conquest, and therefore makes it easier to commit such acts.
>>1419061
>places under Muslim rule typically permitted to keep their own religion for longer than places under Christian rule
wew lad...............
Christianity is objectively superior to Islam as far as its impact on culture and law.
Wherever Islam goes, Sharia law will follow. I definitely prefer the liberal west to sharia.
>>1419097
You can't read.
A civilization under Christian rule is objectively superior to a pagan one.
>>1419100
The history of academia supported by the church compared to all those vast libraries of knowledge aggregated by pagans....
>>1419110
Objectively? Because Christians actually succeeded in conquering the world, and succeeded in forcing most of the world to become Christian?
Saying wherever Islam will go, shariah law will follow, is like saying wherever Christians will go, Christian laws will follow.
The liberal west is better than islamic law or christian law. I agree.
>>1419086
OP here, yeah paganism would have been best outcome, we would literally be better off. It would be similar to how Japan is, culture and religion wise. Its just a culture man, except its one that doesn't make human nature sinful and thus introduces intense guilt and shame into the society.
>atheism>paganism>>>Christianity>>>>>>>>>>>Islam
>>1419113
Again, objectively because Christians won in the end? No one genus of paganism have never conquered the world. Christians have.
>>1419118
>Libraries have never existed anywhere outside of Christian nations
wew lad
>>1419106
>The former openly acknowledges that the religion is compatible with acts of violence and conquest, and therefore makes it easier to commit such acts.
Religion only changes the justification given for the acts of violence, not the fact that acts of violence are committed nor the real reason why they're committed.
>>1419123
What are these so called "christian laws"
>>1419123
>forcing
Most people converted man, for the same reason people converted in the first century. Christianity has a powerful message that usually always overtakes paganism, if your living in a world that cannot yet scientifically explain the natural world around you, or your too dumb to understand, which is what was the case in colonial times.
>>1419125
I can meet you halfway here. That's a perfectly acceptable opinion and you are a gentleman and a scholar.
>>1419125
A society that accepts human nature is more often worse off than one that condemns it
>>1419140
>Most people converted man
Yeah, by force.
>>1419131
Oh shit.... you're right....
i guess pagans have a shit ton of academic accomplishments then...
oh wait..............
>>1419113
Why?
Pagan doesnt automatically = barbarian.
The birthplace of Western Civilisation was pagan - the Ancient Greeks and Romans. And the East Asian Countries are "Pagan".
>>1419139
Common or civil law, backed up by monarchs, backed up by the divine right of kings.
Or maybe people who believe in the divine right of kings are true Christians... in that case I take it back. There were /no/ Christians in Europe during the Medieval or Renaissance periods...
>>1419140
Yes, most people converted. It's just that under Muslim rule, this takes place over the course of centuries; the Americas, Australia, and southern Africa prove that under Christian rule, conversion takes place in under a century.
And we have to remember that everywhere conquered by Muslims was conquered by Christians at a later date, it's only that they had a united religious identity which kept them from being converted like the countless religious practices in the Americas, Australia, and southern Africa.
>>1419135
let me break this down for you since youre too retarded to understand
>base holy text of islam tells followers to kill the kaffir
>dogmatic islamic organizations also tell followers to kill the kaffir
>they do
>base holy text of Christianity tells followers to love thy neighbor
>dogmatic catholic papacy tells followers to reclaim the holy land deus vult
>they do
Once Christians learned how to read, they stopped killing people
Once Muslims learned how to read, they kept killing people
This is not a difficult equation...
>>1419153
>Pagan doesnt automatically = barbarian.
It sort of does.
It's what conquering cultures say about the cultures they've conquered.
Pagan is the word for people conquered by Christians; barbarian is the word for people conquered by Greco-Roman civilization.
>>1419153
Christian Rome > Pagan Rome
east asian pagans are more spiritual in nature
>>1419161
>Once Christians learned how to read, they stopped killing people
Do you mean in the Protestant countries? They stopped invading and converting people abroad after they began to read the Bible?
What year did people start to read the Bible, would you say?
>>1419149
Stop embarrasing yourself
>>1419161
You mean
>Once Christians learned how to read, they stopped using religion as an excuse to kill people and started using money and political rhetoric instead.
>>1419168
I'd conjecture that the literacy rate in Europe breached above 50% in the 17th century.
>>1419171
Yet Islam is still being used to kill people
Thanks for proving my point
>>1419174
And after this, Europeans ceased to conquer other people?
This is a map from the end of the C17th, and it appears as though Europeans still controlled foreign lands. How can this be?
>>1419178
I'll say it once more: Religion doesn't cause people to commit acts of violence; It merely gives them an excuse to do so, and if they can't use their religion as an excuse they'll just find other excuses.
>>1419168
Are you implying that Cortes's conquest of the Aztecs was in any way related to Christianity by the sword?
They never even pretended to be spreading Christianity. Priests simply followed them there afterwards and spread the message of Christianity in the conquered lands. The people naturally converted.
The colonization cannot be compared, as its a part of the modern world. It was motivated for different reasons.
It would have happened either way. In comparison, the conquests of Islam would NOT have occurred if not for Islam.
>No Islam? The Saudi cities would have remained a backwater doing nothing
>there would be no Islamic State today trying to create a new caliphate
Islam creates its own wars. The colonization of the world is simply a natural progression regardless of the religion.
>>1419189
No, i would say the absolute number of violent acts are decreased overall if you take Islam out of the equation.
People still act out due to economic and power. But give them religion, and it only makes it easier for them to act, and more numerous too.
More importantly, as another anon pointed out, Islam provides an outlet for disaffected young men to act out in a violent way, by joining something that gives them purpose. Ordinarily, these people would not be given an outlet to do these things usually, without Islam.
>>1419184
>implying colonialism was not a natural progression for the world that had an objectively positive effect on increasing the wealth, scientific knowledge, technology and culture of the world
Why are we attacking Christianity (implying it had anything to with it anyway) for Colonialism, when it was a net benefit?
>>1419195
>Are you implying that Cortes's conquest of the Aztecs was in any way related to Christianity by the sword?
Are you implying Spaniards were not Christian during the past five hundred years?
There was no forced or coerced conversion in the Americas?
>priests simply followed them afterwards
I see. If a society has multiple organizations who each take a part of the conquest, exploitation, and conversion of foreigners, it's okay. If a society focuses on one organization to engage in conquest, exploitation, and conversion of foreigners, it's bad.
>Islam creates its own wars. The colonization of the world is simply a natural progression regardless of the religion.
It's only a natural progression for people who want to continue conquering new places. Christians conquered the entire planet.
>>1419184
conquering and colonizing =/= killing as he describes it.
Hes talking about pic related
This stuff isnt justified for money or politics or power, it can only be justified through religion, and its something that Christianity vehemently opposes, hence why its non-existant in Christian societies for a long time. Gays were outlawed and discriminated against, but they have never been killed in the scale they are in the Islamic world
>>1419224
>>1419208
>Why are we attacking Christianity (implying it had anything to with it anyway) for Colonialism, when it was a net benefit?
A net benefit?
I believe in the free market, it would have been a net benefit to trade peacefully. Conquering people is a net benefit for the people who conquer.
The industrial revolution was a net benefit to everyone, the presence of cheap energy in coal and oil has benefited everyone.
>>1419224
Oh. He's saying that Christians don't kill gay people.
I guess that's because they live in secular states with rule of law. When they got to set the laws they did a lot of persecution of gay people.
>>1419213
>Christians conquered the entire planet.
No, westerners conquered the entire planet, in an age where there was the secular rule of law, and kings did not have divine right, and the ultimate guiding force was mercantilism and commerce.
They also conquered the planet because they were better at it than anyone else, and it would have happened regardless of the religion.
Islam on the other hand creates its own wars and violent acts to this day
>>1419243
>No, westerners conquered the entire planet, in an age where there was the secular rule of law, and kings did not have divine right, and the ultimate guiding force was mercantilism and commerce.
When would you say that the driving force behind Europe ceased to be Christianity and became 'western values'?
>They also conquered the planet because they were better at it than anyone else, and it would have happened regardless of the religion.
Possibly. Europe is one of a few places that were likely to end up conquering the world.
>Islam on the other hand creates its own wars and violent acts to this day
Then the conflicts between the Christians in the Europe during the World Wars and the Cold War doesn't count? Or the Christian bias against homosexuals and non-Christians was not a matter of secular law in the western world, even to this day? Why not?
>>1419264
1650ish
>>1419234
Oh shit. I guess you're right. Muslim theocracies should be allowed to continue to exist because Christians used to do mean things. You're totally fucking right.
>>1419229
>Conquering people is a net benefit for the people who conquer.
Yeah, the Europeans prospered and hence scientific progress was hearkened, ushering in the industrial revolution. Thats why i said NET benefit, implying there were some downsides too, but overall it was good.
>it would have been a net benefit to trade peacefully
You realise the aztecs attacked the Spanish too right? They lured him into Mexico City intent on killing them all. Both sides were not up for trade, because this wasnt the modern world where that was possible.
>>1419184
Oh shit ur fuggin right!!
Europeans shoulda packed up and destroyed the entity of the nation, the state and private property b/c its like a totally mean thing to own land and defend it and your people who happen to be similar in culture
wow... never thought of it that way........
>>1419234
Yeah, because persecution is totally the same as killing on a mass scale.
Christians, outside of the medieval ages, never killed gays on an institutional level
But go ahead, go by gay in Saudi Arabia
I dont understand why you people are so defensive of this barbaric religion, and so quick to condemn Christianity. Christianity isnt even particularly good, but its better than Islam
>>1419275
And when did Christians cease to take advantage of the conquests, carried out by people you say were non-Christians, to convert people?
It's just, they were far more effective at and interested in converting the people in their empires than Muslims ever were.
It's odd that they keep referencing Christian values when they're justifying these conquests, considering every organization that supported colonization must have been composed of non-Christians. Or maybe it's odd that Christians in Europe took no action against the wars their country was fighting to conquer foreigners.Which do you think?
>>1419279
That's what I said?
I post that I am opposed to theocracies, and you take from it that I am only opposed to theocracies you would support? And I support theocracies you would oppose?
>>1419285
wat
>>1419288
When it is killing on a mass scale it is. Thankfully non-Christians wrestled control of the law mostly away from Christians, but it has been mostly in the last century.
>>1419264
>Then the conflicts between the Christians in the Europe during the World Wars and the Cold War doesn't count?
What?
Are you saying the world wars were to do with Christianity? Just fuck off, your retarded
Pretty sure im speaking to a butthurt muslim now
>>1419294
They were planned and fought by Christians.
Are you saying they weren't? Or is it okay for Christians to take off their Christian hat when they order or commit violence so it's not Christian violence, but a Muslim cannot do this?
>>1419243
>No, westerners conquered the entire planet, in an age where there was the secular rule of law, and kings did not have divine right, and the ultimate guiding force was mercantilism and commerce.
the socioty was still inherently christians, missionaries were part of colonialism and religion(tho maybe not a primary cuse) was used as justification
and christianity benafited.....how much gold was stolen from south america and how much of it ended up in cathedrals?and what about slavery? catholic instetutions owned slaves
while christianity may have stopped being a cause, it was sure as hell complicit
>>1418516
>Spread peacefully
>Pleb riots
Christianity: The First Marxism.
>>1419290
Your entire post is a straw man
>>1419280
>Yeah, the Europeans prospered and hence scientific progress was hearkened, ushering in the industrial revolution
a revolution for who tho?....while colonialism might have brought 'modernity' and progress' it wasnt done for the benafit of the colonized peoples
europeas didnt just sail around offering science and hep, they raped nations and laid infestructure to make the transfer of wealth easy for them
Europe's golden age was bought ad paid for with a lot of blood and theft
>>1419341
You're the one who is saying that when Christians conquer a place, they are non-Christian.
Do you really believe this? Then the people who moved to the colonies were non-Christians, no Christian would go to a place to live on land taken from a foreigner. Then the people who supported imperialism or colonialism were non-Christian. The people who joined the army or navy, knowing they would be involved in wars of conquest, were non-Christian. Almost all of Europe must have ceased to be Christian around the time they started reading the bible, in the 17th century.
>>1419361
Just because they are Christian doesn't mean their motivations were of religion.
>>1419374
Even when they reference Christianity as their motivation?
And you don't see any problem with them claiming to be Christian while acting in a way that is antithetical to being a true Christian?
You are saying they are non-Christian for the duration of their non-Christian acts, and then Christian again when they do thinks you approve of, regardless of what they say. But Muslims are Muslims when they're doing things you think are okay, and when they do things you're against, regardless of what they say?
>>1419305
>Or is it okay for Christians to take off their Christian hat when they order or commit violence so it's not Christian violence, but a Muslim cannot do this?
Sure they can, Muslims fought in the World War as well, as the Ottomans, and i say that it had nothing to do with Islam or Christianity.
Just because Christians or Muslims fight in a war doesnt mean it was motivated by the religion. So you can fuck off with your colonialism bullshit because it had nothing to do with religion.
>>1419398
>you can fuck off with your colonialism bullshit because it had nothing to do with religion.
>Manifest Destiny is literally God willing us to take this beautiful land back from the savage, godless natives that despoil it.
>>1419327
>and what about slavery? catholic instetutions owned slaves
You know that the muslims owned slaves throughout their whole history, and you know who Freed the slaves in England? William Wilberforce, on the basis that slavery wasn't Christian.
>>1419404
not him but Christianity benefited from slaves for much longer time than muslims and treated slaves much worse. Just admit Christianity and Islam are the same you autistic retard
>>1419342
>a revolution for who tho?.
For us, today, living in the here and now. The whole world benefits from it in the long run.
And anyway, the Aztecs and Mayans and other american civilisations were always fighting each other in warfare, so why do you view it so badly when the Europeans did it? At least they brought in the modern world.
>>1419416
they arent
islam is much worse
>>1419392
>But Muslims are Muslims when they're doing things you think are okay, and when they do things you're against, regardless of what they say?
Nope, if you notice, there hasnt been barely any mention of the Ottomans, even though they invaded Europe many times. Why? Because there motivations were less religious and more secular. That doesn't mean that Islam is no different than Christianity. Its still an inherently more violent religion.
>>1419402
>Manifest Destiny is literally God willing us to take this beautiful land back from the savage, godless natives that despoil it.
Nowhere did i say Christianity was against propagating itself. I just stated that Islam was much more violent and lethal.
Whenever we have a discussion on Religion we get a bunch of faggots attacking every little aspect about Christianity, when they are missing the point, that Islam is by far a lot worse.
My thread was intended to be to agnostics and non-religious onlookers but i think a faggot muslim is in here crying about manifest destiny and trying to pin that on Christianity.
>>1419419
Christianity Goal
To love God and obey his commandments while creating a relationship with Jesus Christ and spreading the Gospel so that others may also be saved.
Islamic Goal
Fulfill gift and responsibility of this life through following the guidance of Holy Quran and Hadith, striving to serve mankind through compassion, justice, trustworthiness, and love for all of God's creation
>both hate fags
>both advocate slavery
>both advocate charity
>both spread by sword
There is more but Im not gonna do your hw.
>>1419416
>not him but Christianity benefited from slaves for much longer time than muslims and treated slaves much worse.
How about no, your wrong.
Islam has practices slavery for its whole existance, and if the west benefited more from slavery, thats because the West was the dominant economic power.
And most importantly, it was primarily Christians who spearheaded the anti-slavery movement in both america and Britain.
>Just admit Christianity and Islam are the same you autistic retard
Open your fucking eyes to the obvious m8, your truly an idiot if you think their the same.
>>1419447
>both hate fags
check
>both advocate slavery
no, Christianity doesn't, Christianity stopped slavery in the West
>both advocate charity
check
>both spread by sword
No, Christianity was mostly not spread by the sword, at least not as much as Islam
>>1419441
>Christianity "Propagates" itself
>Islam is violent and lethal
>it's ok when we do it
>Whenever we have a discussion on Religion we get a bunch of faggots attacking every little aspect about Christianity, when they are missing the point, that Islam is by far a lot worse.
Far worse? Because it's happening in our neighboorhoods? Christianity never stopped being violent, it's just not in our face.
>My thread was intended to be to agnostics and non-religious onlookers but i think a faggot muslim is in here crying about manifest destiny and trying to pin that on Christianity.
Nope, that's just the strawman you've been grappling with.
>>1419452
>And most importantly, it was primarily Christians who spearheaded the anti-slavery movement in both america and Britain.
Just as it was mostly Christians who owned slaves and supported the slave trade in both America and Britain.
>>1418751
most historians actualy agree the crusade was a political move of Urban 2 to slove the problem of landless norman lords and knights breathing down his neck. Who had also shown to not be afraid to just take land as they had done with sicily. The pope really feared a possible norman conquest in his lands or near his lands and in order to slove this and the request of help he just got from the byzantines (and thus possibly increase his influence there) he sanctioned the crusaders.
>>1419462
>Christianity never stopped being violent, it's just not in our face.
lel
>>1419465
>Just as it was mostly Christians who owned slaves and supported the slave trade in both America and Britain.
Everybody owned slaves. How many imams were anti slavery campaigners?
>>1419477
>What are christian terrorists in Asia and Africa
>inb4 "nobody cares about Asia/Africa"
>>1419459
>>1419452
The main reasons to justify slavery in the U.S was because of the the curse of Ham in the bible.
>>1419459
>Christianity was mostly not spread by the sword
This has to be a joke. Lets forget about the natives that were forced to become Christians, you fucking retard.
>>1419452
>Open your fucking eyes to the obvious m8, your truly an idiot if you think their the same.
Islam is seen as a continuation to Christianity just like Christianity is to Judaism.Christianity ans Islam are one in the same both good religions that are followed by retarded people. If they werent the same they wouldnt be in the same category of Aberhamic religions.
>>1419487
nobody cares about africa. It literally doesnt count, its a shithole, and both the "muslims" and the "christians" do that shit.
Nothings happening in asia either
>inb4 some minor fucking happening news article
Big Whoop! What about fucking Isis and the monthly terror attacks carried out by muslims in the west? Clearly Islam is the worse of the two
>KEYWORD: worse
>>1419501
>It only counts if I say it does
You have no argument, you lost, you can go back to /pol/ now.
>>1419501
not him but
>Its only ok when Christians do it!
>>1419504
African christianity is some voodoo shit.
As for your claim of christian violence in Asia I'm very curious to know what you're referring to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire
"pagans persecuted us first" is not an argument Christcucks. When the shoe was on the other foot you were as bad as everyone else, Modern Islam is just following in your footsteps with mass migration into Europe.
>>1419517
Wow, you're dense are you?
The difference between persecutions done in the name of christianity centuries after the death of the Christ is that they were 1) not initiated by Jesus Christ and 2) not prescribed by Christian teachings.
Contrast that with Mohammed the pedophile warlord, who routinely took underage sex slaves, executed his enemies, sacked cities, ambushed caravans, and put as Islamic law the duty to wage war against the infidel until Islam conquers the world. Those are FACTS.
>>1419523
not him but it seems that Muhammad would get along with Moses and Aberham more than Jesus would. Also if people actually followed Jesus and his teachings Christianity wouldve been extinct a long time ago.
>>1419523
#notallchristians
Mass persecutions by Christians are facts as well anon. Get over it.
Modern Islam is spreading in Europe the same way that early Christianity did, and like early Christianity it won't be peaceful forever.
>>1419540
>not him but it seems that Muhammad would get along with Moses and Aberham more than Jesus would
Probably, yes.
>Also if people actually followed Jesus and his teachings Christianity wouldve been extinct a long time ago.
History tells a different tale.
>>1419548
>Mass persecutions by Christians are facts as well anon. Get over it.
I never denied it.
>Modern Islam is spreading in Europe the same way that early Christianity did,
Christianity didn't spread by mass migration.
Now answer me this question : how many sex slaves did Jesus Christ own? And how many cities did Jesus Christ sack?
>>1419548
>it won't be peaceful forever.
Islam has literally never been peaceful
Never
>>1419495
>This has to be a joke. Lets forget about the natives that were forced to become Christians, you fucking retard.
They weren't forced to be Christians. They literally thought we were Gods so they listened to what we told them.
Muhammad
>Warrior
>respected by all his people
>if you draw a pic of him you will die
Jesus
>Preached
>Betrayed by his own people
>Is a joke character on Family Guy
hmmm I wonder who is better
>>1419552
>Christianity didn't spread by mass migration.
But it spread peacefully, as is Modern Islam in Europe.
>Now answer me this question : how many sex slaves did Jesus Christ own? And how many cities did Jesus Christ sack?
At what point did I defend Islam? Highlighting that early Christians weren't, as you seem to be saying, "true" Christians is not a defense of Islam.
>>1419560
The majority of Muslims are as a matter of fact, peaceful, this is especially true within Europe. But just like early Christianity, when Islam infiltrates the higher echelons of society and has a following close to becoming a majority, that will change.
>>1419568
>>if you draw a pic of him you will die
Mmmh let me test this out. Nope, seems I'm still here.
>>1419572
>But it spread peacefully, as is Modern Islam in Europe.
Modern Islam is not spreading, it's invading. There are (almost) no conversions to Islam. This is like comparing the spread of western civilization in Japan and in the north american continent.
>At what point did I defend Islam?
You're not answering my question. Could you please answer it?
>>1419572
>The majority of Muslims are as a matter of fact, peaceful
>this is especially true within Europe
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting
The majority of muslims IN EUROPE support sharia law, oppression of womens' rights and the genocide of gays. I wouldn't call that peaceful.
The majority of the world is Christian. Everywhere that is majority Christian, is a peaceful, wonderful place to live. Everywhere that is majority muslim, is a terrible shithole.
Fuck off.
>>1419581
>The majority of the world is Christian. Everywhere that is majority Christian, is a peaceful, wonderful place to live
not him but lol nice bait I guess latin america and Africa must be heaven because Christianity is there.
>>1419565
You are fucking retarded. Natives were forced out of their land and forced to submit to western values. You are the biggest dumbass on this board.
>>1419577
>Modern Islam is not spreading, it's invading.
How are we to define spreading then? Children of migrants will be citizens of their newfound European homelands, if we rule them out we have to rule out Christians as well, but it would be a fact that raising children as Christians is a means of spreading the religion and if I'm not mistaken having kids is encouraged in the Bible.
>You're not answering my question. Could you please answer it?
We both know the answer, but we also know it has no connection whatsoever to anything I've posted. Why did you ask it?
>>1419581
>The majority of muslims IN EUROPE support sharia law, oppression of womens' rights and the genocide of gays. I wouldn't call that peaceful.
By definition it is absolutely true that the majority of Muslims are peaceful. If you consider their beliefs violent then you must do the same for Christianity, the teachings derived from the gospels include oppression of women and gays for example, is this is not peaceful in Islam then by the same standard it is not peaceful in Christianity.
>>1419597
>How are we to define spreading then?
Conversion, you fucking retard.
>but we also know it has no connection whatsoever to anything I've posted
It has a pretty obvious connection, which your mental deficiencies prevent you from grasping.
>>1419602
>Conversion, you fucking retard.
By this definition no Christians could have existed after the very first generation of Christians, because their children having been raised as Christians and given no choice in the matter aren't considered Christians this way.
>It has a pretty obvious connection, which your mental deficiencies prevent you from grasping.
No. I said nothing of Islamic teachings, I brought up the similarities in the way early Christianity and modern Islam are spreading in Europe. You ranting about what Mohammad did/didn't do has nothing to do with it.
>>1419614
>By this definition no Christians could have existed after the very first generation of Christians
I'm talking about the spreading of religion, you fucking retard. Spreading through conversion, versus spreading through migration.
I'm really wondering if you're legitimately mentally retarded.
>I brought up the similarities in the way early Christianity and modern Islam are spreading in Europe.
Yes, and you were for countless posts shown how wrong you were. But since we've clearly established that you have an IQ in the low 60s let me recap for you :
-Islam is currently spreading through migration of people from the middle east, not conversion of native europeans. On the other hand, Christianity spread in the roman empire and in the colonized areas (america, africa) through voluntary conversion.
-Islam initially spread through forced conversions, and the theological doctrine of Islam is to wage holy war on the infidel. Although there are cases of forced conversions perpetrated by christians (northern crusades for example), they were not initiated by the Christ himself (unlike Mohammed's conquests) and there is no theological basis for forced conversion in Christian doctrine.
I can't make it any simpler, you're gonna have to make an effort and muster up the few dozen brain cells you possess to understand my post.
Most of the early conquests were just replacing governors and claiming the place as their own. It took centuries for Islam to actually become a major religion in those places. In the beginning the Arabs didn't want converts and were super elitist.
>>1419634
>I'm talking about the spreading of religion, you fucking retard. Spreading through conversion, versus spreading through migration.
That much is obvious, but you're picking and choosing. It's objectively false to say conversion is the only way a religion can spread, it seems to me that you want to simply say it only counts as spreading when Christians do it.
>Yes, and you were for countless posts shown how wrong you were.
When? Islam is spreading peacefully, this is a fact. That you don't like it and don't like having to face up to the reality of it being identicle to early Christianity doesn't mean that it isn't happening.
>>1418516
>Sardinia in the Abassid expansion
Top kek, I would love to see the Source for such an absurd claim, if only the map maker took his time before drawing this bullshit map
>>1418516
>and the case that the crusades were (at least initially) a defensive strike
Nobody thought that way
>>1418516
>spread by the Sword
Hardly anyone was forced into Islam, they usually did it to avoid paying the infidel tax
>>1419720
Also I like how he just came up with a complitely made up date
>827 AD
So let's see what information we have about that period in Sardinia:
>Witnessed also by the passage in Sardinia 829 of Count Boniface, head of the defense of the Carolingian Tirreno, the axis with the Empire still had to bear fruit, given that for over a century there were no major incursions;
Lol, yeah, nice conquest, also I'm willing the bet the date of 829 ad in Corsica is also made up to make it seem all more believable.
>>1419568
Mohammed
>definitely existed
Jesus
>maybe existed
>>1419581
Every Muslim follows shariah law. That is part of the definition of being Muslim.
Every Christian is supposed to follow the laws laid out in the Bible; including the Old Testament.
>>1419735
>Every Muslim follows shariah law. That is part of the definition of being Muslim.
no
>>1419742
Then you should look up what Shariah is.
We allow Jews to follow their religious laws and respect their religious courts, we don't allow them to contradict secular law.
>>1418697
>You can cite all the sinners you want but the Gospels depict how a Christian is supposed to behave and when man fails to live up to that standard they have only themselves to blame.
So its not how christianity affects the population that is the problem but the people themselves.
Its not how communism affects the population that is the problem but the people themselves.
Its not how X affects the population that is the problem but the people themselves.
That is the flaw of EVERY ideal, the difference is that Christianity sets an unnaturally high standard to the point of self-destruction because it is not based in reality and human limitation.
It is too apollonian and does not balance itself with the dionysian to stay rooted in reality.
It is pure word/number/symbol numenon and does not balance itself with the action/flux phenomenon of reality.
Paganism is the balance between the two.
Positive Nihilism is the overt focus on the apollonian and is represented by Christianity and the other abrahamic faiths.
Negative Nihilism is the overt focus on the dionysian and is represented by Hedonism/Capitalism/Communism and other materialistic ideals. It can also aspire for the destruction of all suffering as well, Anti-Natalism.
>>1419759
Good point Evola.
#basicincomewhen
People can then get about the business of living fruitful lives, not treading water to keep someone else's boat afloat.
>>1418516
Islam wasn't spread by the sword, however. The Arab Confederation/Empire was. Islam developed when the slaves of the Caliphate's bureaucracy adopted a holy man known to the Arabs some time before the conquests as a prophet. The Arabs had no interest in spreading their religion, and instead cared more for their tribal politics and myth. When their slaves and subjects began adopting Arab religious figures and culture, the Arabs tried to connect this accidental syncretic faith with their politics, thus creating the pre-Umayyad leadership as saintly figures and beginning the divide between Sunni and Shia.
Thus both Christianity and Islam began as religions for slaves and bureaucrats emanating out from urban colonies, with the only real difference being the base from which the founding myth was developed originated in Christianity from a culture that the imperial culture had conquered, whereas in Islam it originated in the imperial culture itself.
>>the later colonization of the world was primarily driven by mercantilism, and wealth, justified by a view of bringing civilization to lesser races. Religion was an afterthought.
This is mostly how Islam worked as well. The late Umayyads and the Abbasids developed missionary warfare, which is often mistaken for holy war. Their view was that Islamic rule was the one true enlightenment of their age, and that conquests were undertaken not for the sake of spreading religion itself but by spreading its majesty, thereby incorporating people through cultural supremacy. It was a very American way of thinking for a Medieval polity.
>>1419747
Every Muslim does not follow sharia law, most muslims are hypocrites who violate even the most basic tenants of their faith.
Muslims should follow sharia law, but what sharia law is, is not unified, there is no one sharia law, it's different according to every muslim.
>>1419769
>Every Muslim does not follow sharia law, most muslims are hypocrites who violate even the most basic tenants of their faith.
And every Christian does not follow the laws they are supposed to. They are all hypocrites, you are correct.
>Muslims should follow sharia law, but what sharia law is, is not unified, there is no one sharia law, it's different according to every muslim.
So... you just have a problem with assholes? You choose to give out about Muslim assholes in particular?
How is this different from how every Christian has a different idea of what laws they must follow, or is this somehow specially evil for being Islamic?
Interesting symbolic analysis on the creation of Christianity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXtfLT7U6eM
>>1419766
What the fuck are you talking about, that's such revisionist bullshit with no evidence. Islam developed by Muhammad, its clear as day.
>>1419823
>mfw Syro-Aramaic theory is relatively obscure
>>1418516
Understanding the christian religion:
Here's a quick idea of the christian religion in short steps for easy diggestion.
-The devil hates humans and has a shit ton of followers (1/3rd of angels according to the bible) whom will incarnate as humans and be the majority of the people of the world.
-They are known to constantly manipulate scripture to lead people away from the true God.
-Because of this prophets were required to do signs and people who couldn't prove to come from God, were stoned (not with marijuana, mind).
-It kept happening nonetheless, and since they are the majority, they wouldn't stone their own, but rather those of God.
-Chosen person comes down.
-Does his thing and describes the way.
-Gets killed.
-Thus christianity is born.
-Now everybody that has a claim to come from the people of God must absolutely be equipped with miracles, as this is what differentiates us from them and is one of the promises.
-We will be hated by all and persecuted, however.
Now have a look at churches and tell me how many miracles are being made, how much they are being hated and persecuted and especially how much they are unable to rape childen after receiving the spirit of God in baptism, receiving the spirit is something you do so you are under Gods control and not somebody elses, God is omnipotent, mind.
Now take a good look at their bibles: Is their "god" described in there somewhat in disgust of humans? In disgust of their sexuality and human basic things?
Now you know who they are really worshipping: somebody who really hates humans, and be not surprised, as the word lord is the modern equivalent of Baal but in english.
>>1419844
Thats because its has no basis
>>1418516
Islam is certainly doctrinally more violent than Christianity (dar al harb and all), but both religions came to be in violent times. Christianity just caufht traction in an empire that was already massive and on the road to decline, while the Arabs and Islam started together from square one.
Whatever ideals early Christians and Muslims had, they did not override the nature of the powerful, whose occupations and purpose were war and expansion.
A student of history should be careful in labeling events and people. It makes it too easy to oversimplify, exaggerate, or even falsify the historic record.
>>1419823
>that's such revisionist bullshit with no evidence
It is revisionism, though not in the conspiracy/WE WUZ way but academically. Plus it has more going for it evidence wise than the traditional view that Islam just popped into existence fully formed and complete by Muhammad alone.
>>1420303
>It is revisionism, though not in the conspiracy/WE WUZ way but academically. Plus it has more going for it evidence wise than the traditional view that Islam just popped into existence fully formed and complete by Muhammad alone.
That isn't the traditional view. Muhammad was doing Islam for like 25 years.
>>1418653
Kill yourself.
>>1418660
What Christian army conquered Rome?
>>1419234
Ever hear of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", sodomite?
>>1420327
The Arian Christian Visigoths.
>>1420336
>Ever hear of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", sodomite?
>It doesn't count because they weren't TRUE Christians
great argument
>>1418516
another argument would be that the christian prophet was peaceful, while the islamic prophet was violent, and as you should live as the prophets lived, if you're a muslim you should be like mohammed and if you're christian you should be like jesus
Umayyad borders + Anatolia = best borders
Aesthetic af
>>1418516
'Religion was an afterthough' is completely false for the iberian colonial empires. Although they saw spreading religion and bringing civilization as the same.
>>1419206
Remove Islam from the Middle East and there's no guarantee that it wouldn't be replaced by an equally or even more violent ideology. Religion and how it is practiced is a reflection of the cultures which practice it and the ME is currently in a particularly violent phase. Islam isn't the source of Middle Eastern violence, but a reflection of it, and any ideology which replaced Islam would also be a reflection of this violence.
>>1420442
Jesus was peaceful, true, but God, who is higher than Jesus, was not. In the OT he condoned acts of violence such as wars and the stoning of sinners and he often performed acts of violence on entire populations.
>>1420442
Jesus is the only peaceful prophet in Christianity. Moses committed literal rape genocide to conquer Israel. He was much worse than Muhammad.
>>1418516
>>Christianity had peacefully spread through half of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.
Partial Bullshit. Christianity only became the majority religion in the Roman empire after Theodosius ordered persecutions of other religious groups.
>>The only real case of Christianity being spread by the sword in Europe is the Teutonic order
Bullshit.
>>1419149
They did, what do you think the monks were preserving and or burning depending on their mood?
>>1420558
Christianity became a state religion because it was the majority religion. Simple logic my goat diddler friend.
>>1419165
>>Christian Rome > Pagan Rome
Oh look, an unsupportable assertion.
>>east asian pagans are more spiritual in nature
Western polytheism wasn't "spiritual"? That sounds like bullshit.
>>1420573
>Christianity became a state religion because it was the majority religion
That is factually wrong though.
>>1420573
Except that's bullshit.
>>1418623
>
>Christians were only around 5%
Do you have proofs ?
>>1420588
It was like 35% or something when the edict was declared. It seems low but it was higher in Italy which mattered
>>1420608
You got a source on that claim or did you pull that number out of your ass?
Also how can 35% of the population persecute the rest?
Sorry but your argument belongs in the trash.
>>1420616
You got a source otherwise claiming they were the majority like you originally did?
>>1418623
>No source
You're litteraly implying 5% of the pop persecuted the others 95% at a time where any man could procure a sword and start a riot.
>>1420320
He was doing something. Whether it's Islam as we know it is anyone's guess however.
>>1420624
You made your claims first, the burden of proof is on you.
Also it's simple logic, a minority can't persecute a majority, only an imbecile could come up with that nonsense.
Christians: 1
non-christian subhumans: 0
>>1420670
>a minority can't persecute a majority
Do you even history?
>>1419735
You're so fucking stupid
Christians don't have to follow the laws of the Old Testament because the New Testament is the new covenant Christians made with God when Jesus arrived
>>1419590
> Natives were forced out of their land and forced to submit to western values.
western values != Christianity
strawman
>>1420769
>western values != Christianity
Until the Enlightenment they were deeply entwined. and even then remained closely linked in most people's minds.
>>1419848
>whom will incarnate as humans and be the majority of the people of the world.
uhh what
citation please
>>1419877
You should also be careful in allowing certain groups of people with history of violence from entering your nation and raping and killing your countrymen and women because of your fear of "exaggerating"
>lets not be upset at germany for invading poland, im sure not all nazis are bad
>>1420541
>Jesus was peaceful, true, but God, who is higher than Jesus, was not. In the OT he condoned acts of violence such as wars and the stoning of sinners and he often performed acts of violence on entire populations.
It is subject to debate who the God Jesus is connected to is and who the God in the OT is. If you look only at passages referring to God in relation to Jesus, it paints a very different picture of the God they were talking about. It's arguable that El/YHWH of the OT is not the same God that is related to Jesus
Also, Christians don't have to follow the laws of the OT because of Jesus
>>1420575
burning incense is very different from animal sacrifices
>>1420828
Bullshit. The NT and OT God are clearly the same deity, only interpreted in different ways. The idea that they're different beings is just a dishonest attempt to reconcile the two interpretations by claiming that they were never actually the same guy.
Christians may not HAVE to follow the old testament (a subject which is up for debate), but that doesn't mean they'll won't follow it, much like the fact that they're Christians doesn't mean they'll always follow Christ's teachings.
>>1420973
The definition of "being Christian" is following Christ's teachings
If they don't, then they aren't Christian
And for the first point, if you look at everytime God is mentioned in the NT in conjunction with Jesus, God is usually described as some type of spiritual state rather than as an actual supernatural entity
>>1418516
>and the cases where Christians acted in a violent matter can be attributed to human factors.
You could say the same thing about any instance where some group member does something bad and get rid of any blame that way, which would make you're whole point useless.
Your whole argument is full of holes and inconsistencies too (only real case of Christianity being spread by the sword in Europe is the Teutonic order, making illiteracy part of the defensive virtue of the crusades, islam being formed in more violent situation than christianity therefore the actions of it's followers mean the religion itself is objectively worse in some way, etc etc)
I mean, I realize you're not an expert on religion or the crusades, I doubt anyone here is, but your arguments are disjointed and fallacious enough to not warrant any more serious critique than this.
>>1418516
If Islam had been a "peaceful" religion as by your standards, it would have been stamped out and left at the wayside of history before it even got out of Mecca. Likewise if it weren't for the Romans (who were violent conquerors btw) Christianity would have been stamped out along with Jesus by the Hebrews for being the heretic split that it was. The only difference between these two was that the former didn't need violent conquest to spread because it had already been done for them.
>>1418647
>therefore cannot be considered orthodox Christian behavior.
There was no "Orthodox" behavior at the time you mong. There were no texts until decades after the crucifixion, and they weren't amalgamated for hundreds.
>>1418516
when islam started Christianity was becoming controlled by church . they started to hunt down on pagan gods etc ...
>>1421074
>The definition of "being Christian" is following Christ's teachings
What does that have to do with the fact that many Christians follow, or at least look for guidance in, at least some parts of the old Testament? Does following the teachings of Christ imply that you also ignore all of the Old Testament?
>If they don't, then they aren't Christian
So you have to follow every one of Christ's teachings perfectly in order o be a True Christian? I guess that means there have only been a handful of True Christians in all of history.
>>1419735
>Every Christian is supposed to follow the laws laid out in the Bible; including the Old Testament.
Shows how dumb you are, im not even a christian, but the new testament specifically says not to follow the old laws
>>1423149
Yeah but most of time Christians followed the old testament, conservative Christians still shows disgust towards homosexuality or sodomy. This type of ideology only comes from OT and not NT.
Christianity wasn't all about peace, love, and humanity when it first formed, this is slightly unreasonable and biased to claim. Comparatively, Islam was/is much, much worse (the "is" is important, seeing how Islam has not advanced very far since it has not undergone any reformation of the text). They had massive slave trades and conquered many lands that were not Muslim beforehand, often times forcefully.
It is like a cancer, the regions Islam conquered stayed still in time. Meanwhile, the reformed Christian regions prospered and innovated.
MIDF highjacking this thread like they do airplanes.
