That would be a shame I honestly like you as a personThen perhaps I should block you before I say something that gets me in trouble.
That would be a shame I honestly like you as a personThen perhaps I should block you before I say something that gets me in trouble.
But I don't know what else I can do if this is the only thing you're going to talk about.That would be a shame I honestly like you as a person
Becouse,like Blackaddler said in one of WW1 episodes,they would not expect us to charge in the same place 17 time.Fair enough I just see action and reaction and people doing the same shit and expecting different results.
We're not really the problem thing is you need to change out who's in charge of a system every 80 to a hundred years or so.Becouse,like Blackaddler said in one of WW1 episodes,they would not expect us to charge in the same place 17 time.
The back-and-forth bloodbaths between Christianity and Islam demonstrate the Important thing that Intersectionality retains from Christianity: Reliance upon "One True Way" to make sense never works out when you need to live with those who disagree.Wokists reject literally everything about Christian philosophy and ethos except Egalitarianism, and they don't actually even practice that either, they just pretend to.
The back-and-forth bloodbaths between Christianity and Islam demonstrate the Important thing that Intersectionality retains from Christianity: Reliance upon "One True Way" to make sense never works out when you need to live with those who disagree.
With Christianity and Islam, they've proven incapable of peaceful coexistence in thorough contradiction to prior religious friction forming buffer-zones stabilized by syncretism, as any such thing violates the core axiom that their scripture is the only valid morality because it's handed out by an unquestionable absolute.
With Intersectionality, it's philosophically reliant on equality of demographics in all matters of nature, from which any deviation unravels all their rhetoric. Because if any demographic factor is of immutable significance, this "Tabula Rasa" concept is false.
I have extreme doubt towards these modern Christian apologetics, yes for the past 2000 years Christian’s we’re getting it wrong only NOW in the modern west with seperation of church and state are people finally understanding Christ message.This is ignorant of what the actual doctrines of the two religions teach, and what the various political leaders who've used religion as tools historically have done working with and against that.
When the 'One True Way' teaches that you should Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, yes, the 'One True Way' can coexist peacefully with those who do not follow it.
When the 'One True Way' teaches that nonbelievers are subhuman, and that they should be subjugates, then ultimately either forcibly converted or put to the sword, the 'One True Way' cannot peacefully coexist with those who do not follow it.
When you're an ambitious noble, merchant, or politician in a religious society, you may be willing to manipulate religious teaching and doctrine distorting some parts and completely ignoring others, in order to get whatever you want out of it.
These differences and distinctions matter.
I have extreme doubt towards these modern Christian apologetics, yes for the past 2000 years Christian’s we’re getting it wrong only NOW in the modern west with seperation of church and state are people finally understanding Christ message.
I have extreme doubt towards these modern Christian apologetics, yes for the past 2000 years Christian’s we’re getting it wrong only NOW in the modern west with seperation of church and state are people finally understanding Christ message.
True the Bible called out those who were corrupt. But what historical Christianity did not do that many apologists try now is condemn certain actions like you just did oh crusades are bad, oh conquistadores were bad. No they were considered good and doing the Christian thing.You're showing an enormous ignorance of the history of Christianity, Christian organizations, and 'christendom.'
In every era, including the lifetimes of the direct disciples of Christ themselves, there were those within the church who sought after authority, position, and prestige, rather than actually following Christ's teachings. The epistles regularly called this out.
At the same time, in every era there are those who are lauded for the ways they do follow Christ's teaching.
If you seriously think that Christian history between the resurrection and the 20th or 21st century was just a lot of bloodshed and conquistadores, you've been drinking too much atheist kool-aid.
True the Bible called out those who were corrupt. But what historical Christianity did not do that many apologists try now is condemn certain actions like you just did oh crusades are bad, oh conquistadores were bad. No they were considered good and doing the Christian thing.
There were literally several hundred years where wars were fought only between small groups and civilian casualties were almost entirely avoided, because the church emphasized the "Peace of God" and forbade targeting non-combatants.True the Bible called out those who were corrupt. But what historical Christianity did not do that many apologists try now is condemn certain actions like you just did oh crusades are bad, oh conquistadores were bad. No they were considered good and doing the Christian thing.
The only people who were condemned the conquistadors were hypocrites like the British. And yes I know the crusades were complicated.Again you are showing ignorance of history.
Some supported the conquistadores at the time. Some didn't. Generally those who did were doing it more out of nationalism than any kind of religious fervor or such.
Further, the Crusades were a much, much more complicated thing than they were made out to be. Ultimately, the crusades were a counter-attack against the islamic world for the invasions of the Eastern Roman Empire and Europe. They were brutal and bloody, often more so than can possibly be justified, but so was the war the islamic world was waging on 'christendom,' at worst, you can say they failed to rise above the level of their opponents, which Christians are supposed to do.
I repeat, your perception of history seems to be based on classic 'atheist history' talking points.
To make a point, what can you tell me about the historical good done across the centuries by Christians?
Among Christians yes, I acknowledge this I said it above.There were literally several hundred years where wars were fought only between small groups and civilian casualties were almost entirely avoided, because the church emphasized the "Peace of God" and forbade targeting non-combatants.
There were groups that espoused poverty as virtue. That is true, I wouldn't call that a sect though since there were groups that were part of the big Church's that took vows of poverty both Catholics and Orthodox had monks who took vows of poverty. Sometimes they were corrupt, but I would say most actually kept to their vows.*Sigh* no @King Arts they were not the only ones. There have been various secs against the Catholic church throughout the centuries the two big ones being a return to pacifism and a return to poverty. Up until the reformation however they were essentially the vocal minorities of there time and they likely would have stayed that way had the Catholic church not openly fallen into corruption (namely with the use of indulgences) but they were there.
That's like saying the only people against globalism or *insert any war between WWI to today* were hypocrites
Waldensians, Lollards, Freticillians, just off the top of my head. These guys were existing long before the reformation. They were a minority but they were there. And being a minority or a majority does not mean being right or wrong. It just means a belief is popular or at least not looked at in hostility by the massesThere were groups that espoused poverty as virtue. That is true, I wouldn't call that a sect though since there were groups that were part of the big Church's that took vows of poverty both Catholics and Orthodox had monks who took vows of poverty. Sometimes they were corrupt, but I would say most actually kept to their vows.
However pacifism was a niche sect it was not until after the Protestant reformation until groups like Amish or Quakers, etc. and other pacifist groups started to spread. But even then they were a minority. The vast majority of protestants were Lutherans which for the most part were traditional Christians, Calvinists, then the Church of England. Then more sects came about. But most of them did not require pacifism they frequently engaged in brutal wars including genocidal wars. (the reason I said hypocritical was in reference to the English who brought up the black legend about Spain and it's bad treatment of natives, yet they almost entirely wiped out the natives in North America.)
Why are we condemning the conquistadores? As bad as Hernan Cortez was, there's a reason half the population of Mexico jumped on his bandwagon.
Namely in Central America, the ringing native superpowers were cartoonishly evil and their own victims converted to the cross and actively encouraged the Spanish to annihilate them.
Their own neighbors saw that aa Fairplay. Why are we virtue signaling for guys who made the Nazis look like pansies?
Literally this. Sure the Spanish somehow blew all the gold and silver they earned for snuffing out what was likely the most evil religion ever on God only knows what, ye olden days blackjack and hookers couldn't have been that expensive.Why are we condemning the conquistadores? As bad as Hernan Cortez was, there's a reason half the population of Mexico jumped on his bandwagon.
Namely in Central America, the ringing native superpowers were cartoonishly evil and their own victims converted to the cross and actively encouraged the Spanish to annihilate them.
Their own neighbors saw that aa Fairplay. Why are we virtue signaling for guys who made the Nazis look like pansies?