The peaceful spread of Christianity (article)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-11-2015, 12:33 PM (This post was last modified: 11-11-2015 03:20 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: The peaceful spread of Christianity (article)
,
(08-11-2015 10:42 AM)OceanTherapist Wrote:  Here's a nice little article on how Christianity spread through Europe. I'm dumbfounded by Christians that say they're persecuted today when most of them have no idea how the religion moved through the world.

https://odinicriteofaustralia.wordpress....hristians/

Of course, the article is based on a false view of history.

The reference to the Franks and Charlemagne is a good example. The Fanks and Saxons were the same people. Charlemagne converted to Roman Catholicism and became Holy Roman Emperor. In his later years he read the New Testament and came to understand the expression "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and he went through a personal change of heart. He and the Franks, like the Saxons, were a lot of barbarous, murderous, beheading thugs, who had no problem with rape, pillaging, enslaving and all those lovely values which typified our European ancestors. He realized he was part of the problem and immersed himself in study of the New Testament, issuing edicts to his people to start behaving like human beings. He suggested very kindly to the Saxons that they abandon their paganistic practices and also start behaving like moderns instead of carnivorous animals but they refused. So, he rounded up 4000 of their menfolk and chopped their heads off, which made the rest of them think about it and then they too had a kind of personal revelation and changed their ways.

Christians, or "gentiles" were the descendants of the biblical peoples whose marvelous history of debauchery is alluded to in the New Testament. You only need to get one generation in to realize what you are dealing with. They thought they were descended from Adam, who had two boys, by his wife, a lady called Eve. These two boys went on to populate the world with their wives... oh yeah, there were no women, I mean they went on to populate the world by having children with some woman...that would be Eve. So, we start with a divinely ordained family incest story. Then Cain murdered his brother. Nice start.

Then we move on to Abraham who was a bigamist who had numerous "wives" and also concubines and lesser concubines. Then we move on through a history of rulers who were murderous psychopaths, child molestors, liars and degenerates.

Pagan priests engaged in deflowering of virgins and worshipped the phallus. Oh, I forgot child sacrifice and religious prostitution.

Yes, this is the world which Christianity confronted. Today, the inheritors of this "cuddly pagan" intellectual, philosophical, religious and cultural tradition are Boko Haram and ISIL with the difference that back then EVERYONE belonged to this type of religion. What is sad is that here on this forum we have people who can't see that the NT narrative about virgin birth is just a euphemism for family incest of the "lord" and "father" impregnating his own daughter to preserve a royal blood line. This narrative is in distinction from the Hellenistic ethical and moral message of the New Testament.

Surely someone here has the "smarts" to grasp a simple point that if someone is putting forward a rational ethical position, but uses a fanciful story as a vehicle, like a Superman story, it doesn't mean the ethical statement is invalid, nor does it mean that the character depicted is mythical rather than a fictionalization of someone who may have been real. And I would hope that it would be understood that a person who writes about ethics from a rationalist perspective is, when writing about the "Holy Spirit" and "walking on water" not expecting others who know he is writing from a rational perspective to take the fantastic parts of the story seriously. On the other hand, writing as a polemicist, he would naturally expect those who need to believe a narrative to have something which they could follow, because it referenced a recognizable historical character and a recognizable system of "beliefs" and religious practices.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: