Cite that any of these are “rampant” in Amsterdam?
ETA: Damn! Beaten to it.
Oh, please. Christians came up with the idea of “separate creation”, that the different races were essentially different species separately created by God with preordained places. With the whites naturally on top.
Where did you come up with this one? This is definitely not part of mainstream Christian theology.
I didn’t “come up with it”, I read about it. And as far as I know no one follows the idea anymore (although who knows, there might be some church somewhere that does). I was just making the point that sticking people into immutable categories isn’t some uniquely Hindu idea.
The industrial revolution happened much later. I distinctly confined my answers to pre-industrial times, probably 1600’s or early 1700’s and before. Plus, I don’t think you can pin the IR on any religious influence. It was more about businesses and corporations using their newfound power to exploit and make money
As for weapons, yeah, if you wanna credit Christianity with weapon manufacturing, go ahead. Just know that it proves my point that Christianity seems much more bloodthirsty in its history than the other religions.
I consider that more of a social class system than anything, but yes, I concede that there are atrocities there too. But it’s not like Christianity didn’t have it’s own caste system where the priests and the church officials were at the top and peasants were expected to obey and tithe. It wasn’t as prominent as the Hindu system, but it existed.
China and Japan persecuting Christians are a different subject altogether. I was discussing how a marginalized Christianity would be better for the world since the other religions are somewhat better. Persecution of other religions is a standard fact of how religions deal with other religions. But at least they didn’t set anyone on fire or hang them as witches. You’ll find that the persecution of Christians began much later in time. Chinese and Japanese peoples didn’t really have holy wars over Buddhism, nor can I remember a religious war India fought with other Hindus. Christians had a major divide unto itself that spawned hundreds of years of infighting and killing. There is no comparable scale of that sort within Buddhism and Hinduism. Hell, even when the Japanese took over parts of China, there wasn’t mass forced conversions of people into Shinto, those were political battles, not religious
Also, Islam was heavily influenced by Christianity, so I don’t think you’re helping your cause any by mentioning that they were also warlike.
I’m gonna need a cite for that. A cite that this was ever a mainstream Christian idea.
I never said that it was a “mainstream Christian idea”. As for a cite of its existence, a few seconds of googling brought up one discussion. “Polygenesis” is the technical term, apparently.
That has nothing to do with Christianity. It was bad science, but given the time period we’re talking about (early 1800s, pre-Darwin), not terribly bad.
This wiki page, which cites the CIA World Fact Book, lists the adult prevalence of AIDS in the Netherlands as .2% The United States is triple that, at .6% - higher, incidentally, than just about anywhere in Europe, except for Switzerland.
Couldn’t find any breakdowns of STDs or child prostitution by country. But then, I’m pretty sure Qin didn’t either, before he made that post.
Tell me about it. Lemur866 seems to be confusing aspects of Hindu karma with Buddhist karma (or at least what most sects believe), then he just added stuff in that he made up.
Well done. Now explain how that is the slightest bit relevant to what I said - which, to paraphrase, was that one of the reasons for the growth of non-conformism in some areas was the involvement of the local Established church in promoting the agenda of mine and mill owners.
I meant Thailand which Siam Sam seems to think is a hedonist’s Shangri-La.
That is considered to be unorthodox and heretical by most Christians.
And political wars were no less bloody than religious ones. And a lot of the religious wars really were for political reasons.
:rolleyes:
Really? Please look at your post #55 again. and the only one implying some kind of “hedonist Shangri-La” is you.
What’s with the weird nested quotes?
We’re getting away from the discussion point I originally replied to. Whether it was “dark” or not isn’t really the focal point. I readily admit that Europeans made great advances during that period in not only science but philosophy (Magna Carta, 1215). Yet at the same time the arc of religious intolerance and evil was bent towards suppression, slaughter, inquisitions, and wars on mostly your fellow Christians. That is an undeniable fact.
Whether you want to pretend they dressed up these “heretics” in the garbs of witches or apostates simply compounds their mistake: that these were Christians fomenting violence on mostly other Christians, and thus support my contention that as far as religions go, marginalization of Christianity early on would have had a positve effect in that it would have rooted out a religion steeped in hatred and bigotry for most of it’s history, and that comparably, major religions of the East had no equivalent biases and that most of their slaughter and evils happened despite religion, not because of it.
I’m not going to excuse the Hindi caste system, but the point in bringing that up wasn’t that Hindus were just as bad as Christians, but that Christians have done all these horrible things in the name of their god while Hindus have done one major thing. I think Christianity still wins out as the more evil religion
Irrelevant. We’re talking about religion and it’s influences, not politics. Politically, maybe feudalism or monarchies were worse than Christianity, but that doesn’t mean Christianity is off the hook as one of the worst major religions. And fact is, there wasn’t the scale of atrocities committed in the name of, or by Buddhists or Hindus as there was in the name of Christianity or it’s spinoff, Islam.
Today’s Anglicans include some of the most liberal Christians today. Indeed, England’s Anglicans are practically atheist. But that’s not what Acid Lamp was talking about. The Anglicanism of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and Cromwell was savagely bloody.
And the progeny Acid Lamp is talking about aren’t today’s nominal Anglicans and Episcopalians, but the other offshoots of English Protestantism that today dominate significant segments of American and African culture.
Got there before I did, Thanks. 
It happened, but there was really less religious intolerance in the middle ages than in the Renaissance. There wasn’t even very much suppression of heresy in medieval Christianity before the Albigensian crusade.
Actually, I think you’re talking about Christian Identity, which is, to say the least, not mainstream Christian.
[QUOTE]
Accident.
Religion was merely an excuse for violence, if there had been no religious justification some other justification would have been made up.
Except Western Civilization as it stand today is heavily a product of Christianity and it is to date the most enlightened and tolerant civilization in the world.
[QUOTE]
No, I was talking about older ideas; the CI will do too though as an example though. And it doesn’t matter if it is mainstream or not; I was making the point that putting people in immutable inborn categories isn’t some unique Hindu evil.
That’s just an attempt to divert the blame. Again, just an example of defending religion by refusing to blame it for the evil people commit in its name, while of course if they do good in the name of religion we are told that proves how wonderful religion is.
“Enlightenment” of any kind and tolerance are as un-Christian as you can get. The better aspects of “Western Civilization” are all dependent on the rejection of the malignant, corrupting influence of Christianity and religion in general.