List of Christian Atrocities
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-06-2011, 09:36 AM
 
RE: List of Christian Atrocities
(07-06-2011 08:52 AM)Ghost Wrote:  (sic)"...Look, I'm not saying Christianity is innocent. They have a ton of shit to answer for. And frankly, it's only Gassy's post that set me off...
Certainly it may be deemed quite obvious that is not the truth, given this is not Gassy's thread.

As for your Football analogy, that's so far off base and displays such a highly emotional off centered irrelevancy to the topic at hand, that it insults football more than it could have ever insulted anyone here. As was it's (failed) intent.

If you have relevant material that refutes what's in this thread's OP, post it.

Instead of now appearing to throw just as much irrelevant unsubstantiated rhetoric as you accuse others of. Rolleyes
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GassyKitten's post
07-06-2011, 10:09 AM
RE: List of Christian Atrocities
(07-06-2011 08:52 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Right. The destruction of the Native population had nothing to do with the lush farmland and the massive fish stocks and the vast timber and the gold and the fur trade. Yeah, it was all about mission. Who needs history when we can just make up what happened? There are buildings in Seville made almost entirely of gold because of mission, not because the Spanish plundered the Americas for gold, so much so that they hired a massive mercenary army and spent so much gold that they flooded Europe with the stuff and almost rendered it valueless. And smallpox? Right, all Christianity. The Hudson's Bay Company, the oldest corporation on the planet, didn't hand out blankets infested with smallpox killing roughly 80% of Canadian natives (99.97% among the Haida Gwaii). Or Lord Jeffery Amherst, Commander of the British Forces in the Ohio Valley in 1763 who ordered the distribution of items infected with smallpox, a tactic that killed 100 000 natives. Who cares about detailed studies on the history of disease in colonialism like Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel? It must have been the church.

Americans make me laugh. They talk about Columbus the great Christian murderer all the time... except on Columbus Day. Wouldn't want to smear him on a national holiday.

150 million Indians? Is this guy fucking serious? That makes perfect sense. Seeing as how the pre-European population of the Americas was roughly 20 million and how 19 million were killed by infectious disease alone, makes perfect sense that a magical 131 million natives were created from thin air so they could be killed. Did anyone fact check any of this? I guess that's not important when it supports your position.

Look, I'm not saying Christianity is innocent. They have a ton of shit to answer for. And frankly, it's only Gassy's post that set me off. But when I see unverified lists like this put up and just accepted as fact, without argument, and when I see every atrocity ever perpetrated attributed in whole to religion, especially when it rewrites history, I just... you guys are fucking smarter than that! Seriously. I know what it's like to be in a community and to have your position reassured, but Christ, if it's coming at the expense of fact and reason, then what's the God damned point? If you're going to foam at the mouth every time you score a point, then just watch a football game.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I agree with Ghost... but without the patronizing attitude. As I stated above, people have always killed people (long before Christianity came around)... they only differ in how they justify it. Christianity has no shortage of people killing in it's name. However, in it's absence they would have killed all the same. Of course Christianity does not get a free ride as it allows for the wholesale slaughter of any group you wish. I think it would also be best to move beyond Christianity and recognize Religion in general as mans "go to" excuse when needing to justify killing others. But alas, even with religion's complete removal... you would have a hard time convincing me the killing would stop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2011, 10:22 AM
RE: List of Christian Atrocities
Hey, Myst32.

Myst32 Wrote:I agree with Ghost... but without the patronizing attitude.

ROFL! Love it. Love everything about it. You're good in my book Cool

Hey, Gassy.

...not worth it...

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2011, 10:56 AM
 
RE: List of Christian Atrocities
(07-06-2011 10:22 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Gassy.

...not worth it...

Matt
LOL Great observation Myst32. Too bad Ghost doesn't get you were talking to him, as well as any of the rest of us you may deem worthy.

Hey Ghost,
That's what you always say. Rolleyes

You make accusations condemning people who address the atrocities related to anything Christian or religious. And then when challenged to present a point of view that supports your contention that those aforementioned critics are wrong, in your book, you excuse with; it's not worth it. Well, it was worth your patronizing every member who cared to share in this thread. And it was worth your proffering bloviated unsubstantiated claims to the contrary of those opinions. And now that you're called on the carpet to support your blustering attacks against atheists once again, you bow out with; it's not worth it.

That's because you're not capable of bringing it. You don't have it at your disposal. You don't know what you're talking about, save to patronize members here, as the resident theist apologist unable to accept the facts Christianity has a bloody history as does most every religion.
Peace love and empathy? It's not worth it. We read that, ever post you make. But it is a great bumper sticker, boasting as much about a person's integrity as does vinyl and stick 'em. And they sell them at the local occult shop here. Dollar a piece. Worth every penny.




For those who are interested in the facts. This is an interesting read.
Christianity's Bloody History


(Excerpts) (sic) "...However, while important, this only serves to steer away those who wish to stereotype religions based on the acts of one denomination or one segment of that religion. Three key reasons exist for the deaths caused by religion. First, the death might be called for or condoned by the religion or the religion's God. Second, the perpetrator of the killing might have misinterpreted the religious text or instruction, either intentionally or unintentionally. And third, the perpetrator may not truly be an adherent to the religion, merely using it to further his own goals."


(sic) "...Perhaps the greatest example of the first reason lies in the Old Testament of the Bible. While not actually Christians, for Christianity did not exist until the coming of Christ, the Jews did and do follow the same God, and did so in their Exodus from Egypt, and while conquering and then living in the Promised Land. On their journey to this land, God ordered the Israelites to slaughter whole nations several times." ...(sic)is it right for people to kill in the name of their god now, in the present day?

The answer to the former is yes, it was right for the Israelites to slaughter the people the God commanded them to. Firstly, because God told them to, and his word is above all else"


(sic)"...Misinterpretation of religious text, the second key reason, is best described by the many misdeeds of the Catholic Church. The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition are two prime examples of the Catholic Church misusing its power to further their own interests. " ...(sic)"During the Spanish Inquisition, the Catholic Church used its laws on heresy to further its own goals. By defining heresy as anything against Catholic dogma, the Church could "purify" the people of Spain. This meant driving out or killing Jews, Protestants, and any non-believers."


(sic)"...The third major reason, false expression of religious belief, has been touched upon in the previous two reasons. Those who fall into this category are those who intentionally disobeyed the law of God, or intentionally misinterpreted religious doctrine for their own purposes." ... (sic)"These three points attempt only to explain the reasons for why so many deaths have been caused by the world's religions. Man's cruelty and evilness is really the root cause for all of them."
...(sic) "In his book Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century (1993) Zbigniew Brezezinski estimates that Communist oppression has killed sixty million people. Remember, Communism is the supreme atheistic government. These numbers are staggering, especially when compared to the Spanish Inquisition, which is estimated as causing about 32,000 deaths, and the Crusades, between one and five million. The same site with the above death tolls has a median estimation of seven and a half million, which is likely high. Lastly, Pitirim Sorokin estimated that in all the medieval wars in Europe, less than five hundred thousand Europeans were killed. Thus, even if one were to say that Christians were responsible for all the deaths caused in Europe amongst the hundreds of wars (and this, while certainly an exaggeration, is not too far-fetched, for the Catholic Church was directly involved in the majority of European wars), and the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition, and the Thirty Years War, at the median of the estimates given, it would turn out to be around 1/4 of the deaths caused by just Communism."


**The Caveat to reading the above would be that Communism is a political ideology, not a religious dogma, when reading of the numbers of persons slaughtered in the name of installing a Communist regime.**
Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2011, 01:13 PM
RE: List of Christian Atrocities
Hey, Gassy.

Lol. You’re hi-larious.

For the record, my post was replete with facts, but I've never seen those get in the way of one of your virulent and hate filled rants.

Allow me to clarify.

... you're not worth it... I'd have a more stimulating conversation with an old sock... and it'd be less insane. Why don't you run along and tell someone what a mistake it was for him to father a child, ya bloody hatemonger?

So go ahead. Accuse me of not being able to argue. Accuse me of not being able to bring facts. Accuse me of not being able to accept that Christian's have a bloody history (which I did do on the last page lol). Hell, accuse me of not being able to grasp that Myst was talking to me. My record speaks for itself. I might be controversial, I might fly off the handle now and then, I might even be a bit of a jerk at times, but anyone that can read knows that your accusations against me are full of shit. But check this out. I'm calling you a hatemonger. Anyone who can read knows that that's true. You can't hide behind your record because your record is loud and clear. So like I said. You ain't worth a damn.

lol... bloviate...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-06-2011, 05:00 PM
 
RE: List of Christian Atrocities
(07-06-2011 01:13 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Gassy.

Lol. You’re hi-larious.
Unlike how one may read you at times Ghost, I don't do drugs. Smile

Quote:For the record, my post was replete with facts, but I've never seen those get in the way of one of your virulent and hate filled rants.
[Image: 6.gif] Oh my. Firstly you provide no facts in your bloviating patronizing rant against myself, whom you actually think posted the OP, and others, as you attempt to condemn our observations about the OP topic. When asked to provide facts you claim it's not worth it. When your remark that providing facts isn't worth it is addressed as your typical response when someone asks you to back up what you claim and yet never provide facts to support, you now claim your former post was replete with facts. That's delusional.


As for the rest of your observations about me, I don't respect you,so I don't care what you think of me.Smile
Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2011, 08:58 AM
RE: List of Christian Atrocities
Hey, Gassy.

Quote:As for the rest of your observations about me, I don't respect you,so I don't care what you think of me

Sweet. At least we can agree on our total lack of respect for one another Cool

As for the rest, are you certain you don't do drugs? Like seriously, I have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

Why do you think that I think that you were the OP? I said your post set me off, which it did. It was absurd and inflammatory and hate-filled and it pissed me off.

I didn't say it was not worth it to provide facts. I was saying it was not worth responding to your idiotic post.

As for my delusion:

-There are buildings in Seville made almost entirely of gold because of mission, not because the Spanish plundered the Americas for gold, so much so that they hired a massive mercenary army and spent so much gold that they flooded Europe with the stuff and almost rendered it valueless.

-The Hudson's Bay Company, the oldest corporation on the planet, didn't hand out blankets infested with smallpox killing roughly 80% of Canadian natives (99.97% among the Haida Gwaii).

-Or Lord Jeffery Amherst, Commander of the British Forces in the Ohio Valley in 1763 who ordered the distribution of items infected with smallpox, a tactic that killed 100 000 natives.

-150 million Indians? Is this guy fucking serious? That makes perfect sense. Seeing as how the pre-European population of the Americas was roughly 20 million and how 19 million were killed by infectious disease alone, makes perfect sense that a magical 131 million natives were created from thin air so they could be killed. Did anyone fact check any of this?

Granted, there was a ton of snark, but those are what we in the business like to call facts. And seeing as how the original poster was shocked at the number of Natives killed by Christianity, I thought it might be relevant to show that the knob who wrote that garbage in the link was only off by about 131 million people. It was my understanding that a wizard did it was not an acceptable support on this site.

What facts did you offer? A foaming at the mouth rant in which you didn't even use the term terrorism correctly. The only reason there's so many Christians is because of blood slaughter and enslavement? Are you fucking joking? Rhetoric is not fact. France used the guillotine? Oh how horrifying. Such evil people. Too bad it's about as significant a statement as Texas electrocuted someone. It was the state sanctioned method of execution. They also used it on Louis the XVI after he was convicted of high treason.

I'll reiterate. I am NOT a Theist apologist as you so cleverly tried to dismiss me as. Someone posted a link to something that is absolute fucking garbage and Myst was the ONLY ONE who questioned it. Of course the Christian church has committed atrocities. But just because I say that link was crap, which it absolutely is, doesn't mean that I'm saying Christianity is exonerated of all wrong doing. That's asinine. Those atrocities happened and it's an abomination against reason to attribute them to the wrong people and to the wrong motivations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2011, 08:23 PM
RE: List of Christian Atrocities
How do you know the actual amount of the Indian population of the Americas at the time? I'm getting conflicting reports ranging from 5 million to 75 million per various sources.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2011, 09:03 PM
RE: List of Christian Atrocities
Which part of America are we talking here? Missionaries made a breakthrough in the whole of the America's which constitutes a very large number of people's. It can also be viewed as a continuous death toll as the continant was taken over which increases the number greatly. There were a lot of native slaughterings as the colonies became more established. Eventually disease fell short of the main death by Europeans for the Americans, bullets. The holocaust lasted less than a decade, colonization of the America's was centuries. It seems quite obvious that the death toll would be higher.

It's perfectly fine to state that the expansive desires of christianity prompted the slaughters of people's through mission work that led to information on exploitable territories. The church does not have to be wholly responsible in order to have a hand in something. Let's look at some facts.

When raiding African nations slave traders tended to bribe member of tribes into collecting slaves for them. No one says that Africans were the horrible people that created the American slave trading industry. During the western expansion many American natives who were in tribes swallowed up by the US turned to "scalping injuns" as their trade to make a living. We don't blame the native population of the America's for nearly wiping out themselves. there are always contributing factors, you can never say something was wholly for a specific cause. while you're right to discuss certain rules, remember that within this discussion the kings were religious and so were the company heads.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2011, 11:33 PM
RE: List of Christian Atrocities
Hey, Monk.

There is a degree of controversy as there was absolutely zero reliable census data at the time. That being said, you'll note that the discrepancies you've found don't even come remotely close to what was said by whoever concocted that nonsense. I personally find that Jared Diamond has done quite extensive research into colonisation and his book Guns, Germs and Steel is widely accepted. In it and in the documentary version he made for PBS, he places the population at about 20 million and the death toll at about 19 million.

Hey, Lilith.

We're talking the entirety of the Americas. North, Central and South, including the great Mayan and Aztec civilisations.

We must also talk about the dominant social institution. If the head of the Hudson's Bay Company was religious (I don't have that information) he was still acting as a representative of a corporation. To say he was acting in God's name is like saying that Lee Iacocca ran Chrysler in God's name or that Michael Eisner ran Disney in God's name. Run it in whoever’s name you want, bottom line, you’re running a corporation, not an arm of the Church. If corporate interests are at odds with Church interests, the corporate interests win every time. Also, while we can say that the Church of England absolutely had influence over British imperial policy, Lord Amherst's use of biological agents was unequivocally a military decision and is on record as being the first deliberate use of a weapon of mass destruction during wartime (predating the use of chlorine gas in WW I by almost 250 years).

Then we need to talk about population dynamics post crash. I had found some figures before about recovery rates, but it's late and I can't find them. But common sense tells us that populations grow at an exponential rate (I actually get that mixed up with geometric), thus when populations crash, it takes generations for them to return to their former levels and even longer to grow past them. So even if we are to accept that 150 million natives were killed, and I know nobody but this crank who does accept that, then we have to accept that the native population was even greater than 150 million because we know that there were survivors. So being generous, that still places the total population of natives between say 150-200 million. Given that the approximate number of First Nations people in all of the Americas today is only 48 million, this is staggeringly difficult to believe.

It isn't obvious that the death toll was higher because the Holocaust was a ruthlessly efficient computer controlled pogrom designed specifically to wipe out a people. Nothing even approaching that was ever put in place in the Americas. So yes, colonisation lasts to this day, but there is no reason to assume that the death toll would be higher. For example, the Rwandan genocide lasted only 100 days and in that time 800 000 people were massacred, primarily with machetes. If we say that the Rwandan genocide lasted for 6 years, it would have resulted in a death toll of 17.5 million, eclipsing the Holocaust. If we were to say that it lasted for as long as colonisation, then the numbers would become simply preposterous. The Killing Fields of the Cambodian genocide claimed 2 million in 4 years. Joseph Stalin killed 950 000-1.2 million in the Great Purge of 1937-38 and about 30 million total during his reign. So there is no reason to make any assumptions about death rates because there are an incredible number of variables involved; duration being but one.

Lilith Wrote:It's perfectly fine to state that the expansive desires of christianity prompted the slaughters of people's through mission work that led to information on exploitable territories. The church does not have to be wholly responsible in order to have a hand in something.

I agree. At least in part. I disagree with the "it's perfectly fine" part. The Christian church absolutely had its own mandate during colonialism. Without doubt. And without doubt they had a hand both directly and indirectly in the deaths. But if you're going to publish a list of Christian atrocities and blame them, without qualification, for an imagined number of deaths, you need to be called out. You can call 9/11 and Afghani atrocity, but people of reason know that it’s way more complicated than that.

That being said, the notion that Christianity had some form of overarching power in the Americas and was even the majority force involved in the death of Native Americans is to utterly ignore the roll of other agendas and other organisations during the colonial period. To present colonialism as a period in which the Christian church set out to convert the world and crush under boot all those that opposed and as a period wherein nothing else of note happened is revisionism in the extreme. We must be careful.

As I've said from the start, the Church as an organisation and as an indirect motivating force absolutely had a hand in the deaths and should be held responsible. But they were absolutely not the only interested party and the figure of 150 million is outlandish. I say this not to exonerate the Church from all wrongdoing, but to bring attention to the others that had a hand in it. I also find it important to question the credibility of this list of Christian atrocities. No one argues that there shouldn't be a list, but that doesn't mean that any old thing can be put on it.

Lilith Wrote:When raiding African nations slave traders tended to bribe member of tribes into collecting slaves for them. No one says that Africans were the horrible people that created the American slave trading industry.

As far as I am concerned, this is confusing mythology and master narrative with fact. The fact is that the American slave trade could not have existed without these people. That they are left out of the story has more to do with how the story is portrayed and with white guilt than it has to do with fact. So people might not paint them in the same manner that you frame them, but they were absolutely an important part of the system. We can't just say things like "slavery happened because of racism" when there were very important economic, military and political determinants that had everything to do with it.

Anyhoo, I don't want to get painted into a corner here. I got beef with the Church's role in colonisation the same as the rest of you. My beef isn't with the fact that there IS a list of Christian atrocities. Of course there is. My beef is that reasonable people cannot condone the use of such a list to propagate erroneous or inflated claims and as a propaganda tool to demonise the Church. They've done enough on their own. They don't need demonising. Lists like this are imply one thing. That the Church is responsible for everything bad in the world and if we just cut it out like a cancer then everything will be hunky dory. But lists like this gloss over reality. There are far greater forces at work than this charlatan could ever possibly wrap his head around. If you miss part of the tumour, the cancer remains and spreads. I'm only interested in identifying the entire tumour, not the part that I think everyone should think is the worst part. That, to me, misses the point.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: