Attacks on Christians increasing.

[digsbe]

Except that at the time neither the state nor the Roman empire existed

At the time it was called the Holy Roman Empire, and the state church was the Roman Catholic church under the pope. The Byzantine Empire also played in I believe. Regardless, the Crusades were not a reflection of Christianity, and that was almost a thousand years ago. Mbig is right too.

 

[marduc]

At the time it was called the Holy Roman Empire, and the state church was the Roman Catholic church under the pope. The Byzantine Empire also played in I believe. Regardless, the Crusades were not a reflection of Christianity, and that was almost a thousand years ago. Mbig is right too.

Psst.. The Holy Roman Empire was made up of predominantly Germanic states, Rome and the Church were separate entities (there were brief periods when the actual city of Rome was part of the HRE, but inconsequentially so). The Holy Roman Empire may have played a bit role in some of the crusades by supplying troops, but that was done at the behest of the Pope, and the church, who were both independent and not affiliated with the "Holy Roman Empire".

 

[Arch Enemy]

At the time it was called the Holy Roman Empire, and the state church was the Roman Catholic church under the pope. The Byzantine Empire also played in I believe. Regardless, the Crusades were not a reflection of Christianity, and that was almost a thousand years ago. Mbig is right too.

I think you need to re-familiarize yourself with the history of your religion.

 

[digsbe]

The history of my religion begins with creation, climaxes with Jesus, and is not responsible for what the Catholic church did. My history may be a little rusty, but the Holy Roman Empire did supply troops and the Catholic church was over all of it. However, the Catholic church does not represent Christianity and what they did was not Biblical. To say that it is in the history of Christianity would also mean that atheism is the bloodies ideology in the world. This thread is about attacks on Christians, and that isn't justified by what the pope did a thousand years ago

 

[Hoplite]

I am not trying to rewrite history, I am trying to present accurate history.

As has been the exscuse of everyone that takes a crayon to the history books because they dont like what they see.

The Crusades was Roman imperialism, it was not justified by the Bible and was supported by the Roman state church. It was a Roman ordeal, not a Christian one. God didn't come down and say to do that, in fact when the Roman church was established many pagan priests just swapped roles and became Christian priests. It was a state thing, not a Christian thing.

Ok, let's start slow.

First off, the "Rome" that you are referring to did not exist at the time of the Crusades. Rome had long since fallen and yes Rome did serve as the sometimes seat of the Papacy. However the Crusades were religiously motivated, the pope even went so far as to declare the Bull of the Crusade (in 1089 IIRC) that said, essentially, that a Christian could kill Saracens (Muslims) and other heretics without fear of sin. I suggest you also look up the meaning of the phrase deus vult and it's origins.

What I was talking about was that the Roman church persecuted Christians that did not assimilate into it. Although pre Roman church they did heavily persecute Christians.

Again, the persecution of Christians is not well established. We know that it happened under Nero as a scapegoating attempt, but not nearly to the degree that people like to inflate the number to.

My history may be a little rusty, but the Holy Roman Empire did supply troops and the Catholic church was over all of it. However, the Catholic church does not represent Christianity and what they did was not Biblical. To say that it is in the history of Christianity would also mean that atheism is the bloodies ideology in the world. This thread is about attacks on Christians, and that isn't justified by what the pope did a thousand years ago

Disavowing what happened in the past as "someone else's fault" is attempting to whitewash your own history. Some brutal and bloody things were done in the name of Christ. Only a fool would blame the ideology, but it's important to understand that no one has clean hands as far as the history books are concerned.

 

[Arch Enemy]

The history of my religion begins with creation, climaxes with Jesus, and is not responsible for what the Catholic church did.

Digsbe,
I'm a Southern Baptist and I am going to call bull**** on this revisionism. The history of my church and of my religion is tied directly to Catholicism.

My history may be a little rusty, but the Holy Roman Empire did supply troops and the Catholic church was over all of it. However, the Catholic church does not represent Christianity and what they did was not Biblical. To say that it is in the history of Christianity would also mean that atheism is the bloodies ideology in the world. This thread is about attacks on Christians, and that isn't justified by what the pope did a thousand years ago

This is becoming embarrassing that you are going to blindly follow your religion to the point where you will disassociate yourself with its past and with its brothers in faith.

The bloodiest ideology in the world, according to your religion's text, is whatever ideology that God follows.

 

[digsbe]

As has been the exscuse of everyone that takes a crayon to the history books because they dont like what they see.

Ok, let's start slow.

First off, the "Rome" that you are referring to did not exist at the time of the Crusades. Rome had long since fallen and yes Rome did serve as the sometimes seat of the Papacy. However the Crusades were religiously motivated, the pope even went so far as to declare the Bull of the Crusade (in 1089 IIRC) that said, essentially, that a Christian could kill Saracens (Muslims) and other heretics without fear of sin. I suggest you also look up the meaning of the phrase deus vult and it's origins.

Again, the persecution of Christians is not well established. We know that it happened under Nero as a scapegoating attempt, but not nearly to the degree that people like to inflate the number to.

Disavowing what happened in the past as "someone else's fault" is attempting to whitewash your own history. Some brutal and bloody things were done in the name of Christ. Only a fool would blame the ideology, but it's important to understand that no one has clean hands as far as the history books are concerned.

Fine, I concede that my history was wrong. Whatever, you got me on that, forgive me, I am a simple biology major. What I do know is that the Roman Catholic church was behind it. And I'll say it again, the Catholic church is not Christian history. Christian history is recorded in the Bible, Catholic history is separate. My religion is not Catholicism, and what the Pope did was not Biblical but rather political. No where in the Bible did it say that in the future the Catholic church was to go in and take over the Holy Land. A few bloody things were done in the name of Christ, but that doesn't mean God supported it or that it is Christian history. True Christian history is what is contained in the Bible. Regardless, if by your standards what the Catholics did constitutes Christian history, than what atheists did in murdering tens of millions also constitutes as within the history of atheism, thus making atheism the most bloody and dangerous ideology. Lets return to the point of this thread instead of debating what a faulty church did a thousand years ago. Christians are being persecuted today on a large scale, and attacks are on the rise.

Digsbe,
I'm a Southern Baptist and I am going to call bull**** on this revisionism. The history of my church and of my religion is tied directly to Catholicism.



This is becoming embarrassing that you are going to blindly follow your religion to the point where you will disassociate yourself with its past and with its brothers in faith.

The bloodiest ideology in the world, according to your religion's text, is whatever ideology that God follows.

I am only stating the facts of the Bible, I am not revising anything. Catholicism is not all Christianity.

I am trusting in my God, not blindly following my religion. I will be bold enough to say that the pope of the Crusades was not a Christian and what the Catholic church taught was not Biblical, I'd say the pope is in hell right now. The ancient Catholic church was not founded on Christian principals, it even restricted reading the Bible and preached a message of salvation that through the church you are saved, not through Jesus. What about the Orthodox churches at the time or other churches around the world separate from the Catholic church during the time of the Crusades? Is their history apart of that too? Regardless, this thread is not about the Crusades, it's about Christian persecution and an increase if attacks.

 

[marduc]

Fine, I concede that my history was wrong. Whatever, you got me on that, forgive me, I am a simple biology major. What I do know is that the Roman Catholic church was behind it. And I'll say it again, the Catholic church is not Christian history. Christian history is recorded in the Bible, Catholic history is separate. My religion is not Catholicism, and what the Pope did was not Biblical but rather political. No where in the Bible did it say that in the future the Catholic church was to go in and take over the Holy Land. A few bloody things were done in the name of Christ, but that doesn't mean God supported it or that it is Christian history. True Christian history is what is contained in the Bible. Regardless, if by your standards what the Catholics did constitutes Christian history, than what atheists did in murdering tens of millions also constitutes as within the history of atheism, thus making atheism the most bloody and dangerous ideology. Lets return to the point of this thread instead of debating what a faulty church did a thousand years ago. Christians are being persecuted today on a large scale, and attacks are on the rise.

So I suppose if we are dismissing what occurred during the crusades in the name of Christ because it is not "True Christian history" then we need to be dismissing what some are presently doing in the name of Muhammad because it is not "True Muslim history" as well.

 

[digsbe]

So I suppose if we are dismissing what occurred during the crusades in the name of Christ because it is not "True Christian history" then we need to be dismissing what some are presently doing in the name of Muhammad because it is not "True Muslim history" as well.

It is true Catholic history, it doesn't reflect on all Christians. I won't deny that the Crusades happened or that they claimed to do it in the name of Christ, but what they did was wrong and not Biblical. If it's Christian history then it's an example where "Christians" ignored the Bible and committed an atrocity. After Muhammad begins the era of the history of Islamic followers, we can't say what people did reflects what the Koran truly says. However, post Muhammad we would see the history of the Sunni, Shiah, and other sects. You can't lump what one sect does and say it's part of the history for all.

And whatever, I just want to talk about the current state of Christianity and persecution. I'll admit my history was rusty, and we can say that the Crusades was apart of Christian history. I was wrong, you all are right. Now lets please get back to the original topic.

 

[marduc]

It is true Catholic history, it doesn't reflect on all Christians. I won't deny that the Crusades happened or that they claimed to do it in the name of Christ, but what they did was wrong and not Biblical. If it's Christian history then it's an example where "Christians" ignored the Bible and committed an atrocity. After Muhammad begins the era of the history of Islamic followers, we can't say what people did reflects what the Koran truly says. However, post Muhammad we would see the history of the Sunni, Shiah, and other sects. You can't lump what one sect does and say it's part of the history for all.

If all the sects descended from the same root, then they all share the history.

I do agree with your post here partially though, we cannot hold Muslims responsible for the acts of a few offshoots, just as a Baptist, or an Anglican, or a Protestant is not directly responsible for the crusades (this does not change the fact that their history includes some horrible things done in the name of christ).

No one is claiming Christ is responsible for the Crusades here; however Christianity is and Christianity does have a horribly bloodied history, it is nothing to be proud of, but it is there, and it IS the history of Christianity.

 

[Hoplite]

Fine, I concede that my history was wrong. Whatever, you got me on that, forgive me, I am a simple biology major.

Dont jump out of the boat if you cant swim

What I do know is that the Roman Catholic church was behind it. And I'll say it again, the Catholic church is not Christian history. Christian history is recorded in the Bible, Catholic history is separate. My religion is not Catholicism, and what the Pope did was not Biblical but rather political. No where in the Bible did it say that in the future the Catholic church was to go in and take over the Holy Land. A few bloody things were done in the name of Christ, but that doesn't mean God supported it or that it is Christian history. True Christian history is what is contained in the Bible.

Revisionist history is NOT going to absolve you or your beliefs. You CANNOT separate Christian history from the actions of the early Church, to do so is intellectually dishonest to the highest degree.

Regardless, if by your standards what the Catholics did constitutes Christian history, than what atheists did in murdering tens of millions also constitutes as within the history of atheism, thus making atheism the most bloody and dangerous ideology.

What official Atheist body was responsible for this?

Lets return to the point of this thread instead of debating what a faulty church did a thousand years ago. Christians are being persecuted today on a large scale, and attacks are on the rise.

No you ****ing arent. You cant even BEGIN to know what persecution is. You sleep soundly in your own bed with your majority around you. Yes there are Christian communities in the world that are at odds with their surroundings, but I invite you to look into Africa where extremist Christian beliefs have led people to attack young children and accuse them as witches.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbDu0-K9cPk"]YouTube- Child Witches - Nigeria[/nomedia]

I have no problem at all with Christian belief, but I find it a slap in the face to hear one crying about persecution.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I am only stating the facts of the Bible, I am not revising anything. Catholicism is not all Christianity.

I am trusting in my God, not blindly following my religion. I will be bold enough to say that the pope of the Crusades was not a Christian and what the Catholic church taught was not Biblical, I'd say the pope is in hell right now. The ancient Catholic church was not founded on Christian principals, it even restricted reading the Bible and preached a message of salvation that through the church you are saved, not through Jesus. What about the Orthodox churches at the time or other churches around the world separate from the Catholic church during the time of the Crusades? Is their history apart of that too? Regardless, this thread is not about the Crusades, it's about Christian persecution and an increase if attacks.

Catholic Churches banned reading the bible?

Source? I find that not only hard to believe, but another notch onto the growing list of biases you've made up .

 

[digsbe]

Please lets not argue this anymore. I have conceded that you are right. The Crusades are apart of Christian history in a broad sense (not all Christianity has history in the Catholic church). The Crusades were bloody, people died because the Pope declared it in the name of Christ. It wasn't Biblical and God was not behind it, but whatever. Now, let's please return to the original topic of Christian's being attacked and persecuted worldwide. I sincerely apologize for my ignorance :3oops:

Catholic Churches banned reading the bible?

Source? I find that not only hard to believe, but another notch onto the growing list of biases you've made up .

They did ban them at one point in time. http://www.hol.com/~mikesch/banned.htm

 

[washunut]

It is true Catholic history, it doesn't reflect on all Christians. I won't deny that the Crusades happened or that they claimed to do it in the name of Christ, but what they did was wrong and not Biblical. If it's Christian history then it's an example where "Christians" ignored the Bible and committed an atrocity. After Muhammad begins the era of the history of Islamic followers, we can't say what people did reflects what the Koran truly says. However, post Muhammad we would see the history of the Sunni, Shiah, and other sects. You can't lump what one sect does and say it's part of the history for all.

And whatever, I just want to talk about the current state of Christianity and persecution. I'll admit my history was rusty, and we can say that the Crusades was apart of Christian history. I was wrong, you all are right. Now lets please get back to the original topic.

How about some history that is a lot more current. Try Germany which is very Christian and Poland where many of the gas chambers were set up is mostly Catholic. Christians have killed millions in the name of their religion.

 

[digsbe]

How about some history that is a lot more current. Try Germany which is very Christian and Poland where many of the gas chambers were set up is mostly Catholic. Christians have killed millions in the name of their religion.

The Nazi's killed many, not Christians. We are talking about Christian persecution that goes on in the world and is prevalent. Why is everyone flipping it into a "Christians kills millions" thread?

 

[Red_Dave]

How about some history that is a lot more current. Try Germany which is very Christian and Poland where many of the gas chambers were set up is mostly Catholic. Christians have killed millions in the name of their religion.

Franco is a better example.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Please lets not argue this anymore. I have conceded that you are right. The Crusades are apart of Christian history in a broad sense (not all Christianity has history in the Catholic church). The Crusades were bloody, people died because the Pope declared it in the name of Christ. It wasn't Biblical and God was not behind it, but whatever. Now, let's please return to the original topic of Christian's being attacked and persecuted worldwide. I sincerely apologize for my ignorance :3oops:



They did ban them at one point in time. Bible possession once banned by the Catholic Church!

they didn't ban the bible. Just the ones they didn't agree with or previously was those not of the Latin tongue.

It didn't really matter anyways because not many people could read the Bible.

 

[digsbe]

they didn't ban the bible. Just the ones they didn't agree with or previously was those not of the Latin tongue.

It didn't really matter anyways because not many people could read the Bible.

And I think that's why they were able to get away with a lot of what they taught, people couldn't read the Bible and priests were used as intercessors between man and God.

 

[scourge99]

From the Pope's hand in the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to Thornton Stringfellow's Biblical support for slavery, to the Vatican's blind eye to the holocaust, we have too many instances of Christians committing atrocities due to their belief.

And what response do we get from Christian apologists? "those aren't true Christians".

I would advise Christians to accept the past. That Christians have done terrible and atrocious deeds in the name of their beliefs. But, to recognize that this has no bearing on the current state of the religion and its followers. That today's Christians recognize the evil done in the religions name. That the Christians who performed such atrocities of the past were WRONG and should be condemned for their deeds.

Why is that instead of such a response we often get silly excuses and even justifications for such acts?

I challenge Christians to follow the example of such atheists as Dawkins and Hitchens and accept that people who share their particular religious/philosophical beliefs have and probably will continue to commit evil and reprehensible acts. But also acknowledge and publicly proclaim that such beliefs and acts are wrong. That people today who hold such wrong beliefs should be condemned. And even more, to stress solutions such as education that can prevent the reoccurrence of such terrible acts.

 

[Andalublue]

Okay, let's get off this, "Your religion killed more people than mine" line of discussion.

I am a defender of Moslems when Westerners start to tar them all with the terrorist brush. Clearly extremists are in a minority. That doesn't escape the fact that there are some Islamic and non-Islamic countries in the World where freedom of religion is not what it should be. This suggests that there are extremist religious nuts running several nations, some of which are close allies of the West. Clearly, these are extremists of a different hue to those holed up in a bunker in western Pakistan, but extremists none the less.

What is to be done about this? Back in 1997, when the Labour party won power in the UK they talked about operating an "ethical foreign policy" in which they would use Britain's political and economic clout (such as it is) to bring about positive change within the international community. Needless to say, most people didn't recognise involvement in Iraq in that light.

Should religious tolerance and pluralism be a sine qua non of economic and political cooperation? And even if we all think it should, can that ever be translated into realpolitik that works on the ground?

Persecution of Christians and other minority religions, whether it occurs in India, Indonesia, Ireland or Israel (or anywhere that doesn't begin with I) has to be addressed.

I would like to see the UN set up a commission of investigation, led by someone of the stature of, say Bishop Desmond Tutu, or the incorruptible Baltasar Garzon, to report on the state of state-sponsored religious persecution worldwide. A report to the general council would name-and-shame the worst offenders and it would provide nations who wish to apply an element of ethical policy to their international relations a resource and an objective assessment of where the worst abuses are taking place.

I say "state-sponsored" because inter-communal persecution, tribal disputes (a la Nigeria) are way beyond the sanction of the UN, but national policy is not.

Any takers?

 

[PeteEU]

It is the classic "scapegoating" argument. Someone is using a minority (large or small) as a scapegoat for all or some problems of the majority.

We see it in every country, even in the west. Often much of the scapegoating is targeted "foreigners" through xenophobia, and when that does not work (or does as in the foreigners leave) and the over all problems that result in the scapegoating still exists, then other minorities are blamed. It is usually people who either look or act differently that are targeted for this scapegoating. And in the Islamic world "christians" some times look but most certainly act differently and hence are easy targets.

In the west, Muslims are like wise targeted because they look and act differently. In the UK it is Poles that are the favourite target at the moment because "they steal our jobs" argument, regardless of the fact that Poles often do jobs that Brits dont want to do or dont have the skills to do. It happens all over the place. In Nazi Germany, Jews were blamed for every problem that the majority had.

Now in Nigeria it is more to do with ancient tribal conflicts than religion. Religion is just an excuse by western media and certain people who want political power to describe a tribal conflict going back long before the populace became bound to one or the other religion. It makes it easier to sell to the masses outside the community to get some sort of sympathy and often financial and political backing.

 

[Andalublue]

It is the classic "scapegoating" argument. Someone is using a minority (large or small) as a scapegoat for all or some problems of the majority.

We see it in every country, even in the west. Often much of the scapegoating is targeted "foreigners" through xenophobia, and when that does not work (or does as in the foreigners leave) and the over all problems that result in the scapegoating still exists, then other minorities are blamed. It is usually people who either look or act differently that are targeted for this scapegoating. And in the Islamic world "christians" some times look but most certainly act differently and hence are easy targets.

In the west, Muslims are like wise targeted because they look and act differently. In the UK it is Poles that are the favourite target at the moment because "they steal our jobs" argument, regardless of the fact that Poles often do jobs that Brits dont want to do or dont have the skills to do. It happens all over the place. In Nazi Germany, Jews were blamed for every problem that the majority had.

Now in Nigeria it is more to do with ancient tribal conflicts than religion. Religion is just an excuse by western media and certain people who want political power to describe a tribal conflict going back long before the populace became bound to one or the other religion. It makes it easier to sell to the masses outside the community to get some sort of sympathy and often financial and political backing.

I agree with you. But that analysis explains the "why" but not the "what do we do about it?".

What do we do about it?

 

[PeteEU]

I agree with you. But that analysis explains the "why" but not the "what do we do about it?".

What do we do about it?

Cant do anything about it if you ask me. Cant fight human nature and power hungry politicians at the same time.

The only thing we can do is over time improve the overall education level of people and hope to lessen the scapegoat game enough so it does not reach the extremes of violence. But get rid of it.. wont happen until we educate people as much as possible and get rid of organised religion as it is today.. organised religion feeds off blaming people and claiming to be the only salvation and fix out there. The same goes for certain types of politicians, who use the scapegoating game as a fund-raising and political platform.. to name a few, Le Pen, the BNP, and quite a few on the far right. Not that the left does not use the scapegoat game also.. but that is usually targeted companies these days

As I said, it is human nature to blame others for your own problems.

 

[SgtRock]

Here is a blog that is dedicated to this subject.

Christians Under Attack

 

[Andalublue]

Not that the left does not use the scapegoat game also.. but that is usually targeted companies these days

It's only scapegoating if it's not true!!!

I'll get back to you on the 'human nature' issue. You won't be surprised to hear that I don't agree with you, but I really do have to get back to the gardening.:2wave: