Fear is your only God- a study of fear in monkeys

[wistahpatsfan]

I never thought of it that way but i guess so.

Were they clean rats or dirty rats?

 

[Fogbuster]

You're on thin ice when you put up religious people that we think are good as a rationale for why religion is good. You know that. right?

The Pilgrims were demons from hell from the perspective of Massasoit and his son Phillip, whose head spent 30 years on a pike outside of Plimoth Plantation as a warning to other Indians who had any thoughts about who was in charge. Psychotic murderers.

Now, now, now, Wistah. Just because Harvard turned you down there's no need to hold a grudge.

Never heard that about heads on any spikes at Plimouth. Where'd you get that, Daily Kos?? Weatherman Chronicles??

Here's what I found about Massasoit:

Massasoit (Wampanoag chief) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


Sorry about the source, it's only the Britannica.

or this: Massasoit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, again. Wiki, revisionist rag.


//

 

[wistahpatsfan]

Now, now, now, Wistah. Just because Harvard turned you down there's no need to hold a grudge.

Never heard that about heads on any spikes at Plimouth. Where'd you get that, Daily Kos?? Weatherman Chronicles??

Here's what I found about Massasoit:

Massasoit (Wampanoag chief) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia


Sorry about the source, it's only the Britannica.

or this: Massasoit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry, again. Wiki, revisionist rag.


//

King Philli's head...not Massasoit! You wasted you time on the wrong track. WIKI? This is common knowledge in New England.

It never ceases to amaze me how people cling to the myths that make their group look good while completely ignoring the facts that prove otherwise:

On July 4, Capt. Benjamin Church and his soldiers begin sweeping Plymouth for Wampanoags. Two weeks later, nearly two hundred Nipmucks surrendered in Boston. Capt. Church was finally successful in capturing Philip's wife and son. An Indian soldier named Alderman in the service of Capt. Church killed Philip after his hiding place at Mt. Hope (Bristol, R.I.) was betrayed. Philip's body was drawn and quartered and his head exposed on a pole in Plymouth. Increase Mather wrote,

"Captured, King Philip was taken and destroyed, and there was he (like as Agag was hewed in pieces before the Lord) cut into four quarters, and is now hanged up as a monument of revenging Justice, his head being cut off and carried away to Plymouth, his Hands were brought to Boston.

Military History Online - King Philip's War

And then there's this:

Church ordered Philip to be beheaded and quartered. The Indian is said to have pronounced a warrior's eulogy: "You have been one very great man. You have made many a man afraid of you. But big as you be, I will now chop you up in little pieces." Philip's head was carried to Plymouth, where it was said to be displayed for 25 years. His wife and son were said to be sold into slavery in the West Indies though accounts vary. Those of Philip's entourage who survived or were suspected of duplicity were summarily hanged or disposed of. No doubt as a preemptive measure, Captain Church and others set upon remaining Indian settlements killing many of their people while disposing of their Sachems or Squaw Sachems. Servitude, slavery or death were the bitter rewards of insurrection.

In ensuing records we see the disposal of some surviving children as servants and the creation of "settlements" signed by Edw. Rawson, Secretary, and passed by the General Court. These orders revoked all prior agreements with the Indians and provided a method by which the colonial magistrates sought to ensure that surviving Native Americans within their jurisdiction would henceforth cause no trouble.

Sources:
History of the Town of Marlborough, Charles Hudson, Boston, 1862
History of Essex County, Ipswich, D. Hamilton Hurd, Philadelphia, 1888.
Indian Captivities, Or Life In the Wigwam, Samuel Drake, 1851
Indian Children Put Into Service, NEHG Register, 8:270+, 1854
Notes on the Indian Wars in New England, NEHG Register, V15, 1861

Native Americans

edit:
God-fearing, yes! Bet your arse the Wampanoag people (those who survived) were God-fearing!

 

[Fogbuster]

King Philli's head...not Massasoit! You wasted you time on the wrong track. WIKI? This is common knowledge in New England.

It never ceases to amaze me how people cling to the myths that make their group look good while completely ignoring the facts that prove otherwise:

On July 4, Capt. Benjamin Church and his soldiers begin sweeping Plymouth for Wampanoags. Two weeks later, nearly two hundred Nipmucks surrendered in Boston. Capt. Church was finally successful in capturing Philip's wife and son. An Indian soldier named Alderman in the service of Capt. Church killed Philip after his hiding place at Mt. Hope (Bristol, R.I.) was betrayed. Philip's body was drawn and quartered and his head exposed on a pole in Plymouth. Increase Mather wrote,

"Captured, King Philip was taken and destroyed, and there was he (like as Agag was hewed in pieces before the Lord) cut into four quarters, and is now hanged up as a monument of revenging Justice, his head being cut off and carried away to Plymouth, his Hands were brought to Boston.

Military History Online - King Philip's War

And then there's this:

Church ordered Philip to be beheaded and quartered. The Indian is said to have pronounced a warrior's eulogy: "You have been one very great man. You have made many a man afraid of you. But big as you be, I will now chop you up in little pieces." Philip's head was carried to Plymouth, where it was said to be displayed for 25 years. His wife and son were said to be sold into slavery in the West Indies though accounts vary. Those of Philip's entourage who survived or were suspected of duplicity were summarily hanged or disposed of. No doubt as a preemptive measure, Captain Church and others set upon remaining Indian settlements killing many of their people while disposing of their Sachems or Squaw Sachems. Servitude, slavery or death were the bitter rewards of insurrection.

In ensuing records we see the disposal of some surviving children as servants and the creation of "settlements" signed by Edw. Rawson, Secretary, and passed by the General Court. These orders revoked all prior agreements with the Indians and provided a method by which the colonial magistrates sought to ensure that surviving Native Americans within their jurisdiction would henceforth cause no trouble.

Sources:
History of the Town of Marlborough, Charles Hudson, Boston, 1862
History of Essex County, Ipswich, D. Hamilton Hurd, Philadelphia, 1888.
Indian Captivities, Or Life In the Wigwam, Samuel Drake, 1851
Indian Children Put Into Service, NEHG Register, 8:270+, 1854
Notes on the Indian Wars in New England, NEHG Register, V15, 1861

Native Americans

edit:
God-fearing, yes! Bet your arse the Wampanoag people (those who survived) were God-fearing!

Have no idea what "myths" to which you refer. Did the English settlers treat the native Americans in a less than Christian way? Yes, certainly. Did the native Americans also raise arms to attack and attempt to destroy all the English settlements at one time in history? Yes, certainly.

War is hell. War is not the long term answer, but throughout history wars have been necessary to make way for a newer, better age. The old age of native American culture(s) -- with many divided and separate and perpetually antagonistic "nations" -- was over; the new age of a one nation under God had arrived.

As your own references point out:

"King Philip's War (1675-76) is an event that has been largely ignored by the American public and popular historians. However, the almost two-year conflict between the colonists and the Native Americans in New England stands as perhaps the most devastating war in this country's history. One in ten soldiers on both sides were wounded or killed. At its height, hostilities threatened to push the recently arrived English colonists back to the coast. And, it took years for towns and urban centers to recover from the carnage and property damage." (Military History Online - King Philip's War)

""The horrors and devastation of Philip's war have no parallel in our history. The Revolution was a struggle for freedom; [highlight]the contest with Philip was for existence[/highlight]. The war lasted only about fourteen months; and yet the towns of Brookfield, Lancaster, Marlborough, Medfield, Sudbury, Groton, Deerfield, Hatfield, Hadley, Northfield, Springfield, Weymouth, Chelmsford, Andover, Scituate, Bridgewater, and several other places were wholly or partially destroyed, and many of the inhabitants were massacred or carried into captivity. During this short period, six hundred of our brave men, the flower and strength of the Colony, had fallen, and six hundred dwelling houses were consumed. Every eleventh family was houseless, and every eleventh soldier had sunk to his grave." Charles Hudson: A History of Marlborough" (Native Americans)

Just as the ancient Jews entered Canaan with the sword, killing all the Canaanite inhabitants, the Christians entered the new land of America and wielded the sword. Ideally, neither should have happened; but for God's unified nation to survive, those wars were necessary. Nobody wants it, but sometimes it is necessary. God seeks a unified world, but it is humankind that must fulfill it.


//

 

[wistahpatsfan]

Have no idea what "myths" to which you refer. Did the English settlers treat the native Americans in a less than Christian way? Yes, certainly. Did the native Americans also raise arms to attack and attempt to destroy all the English settlements at one time in history? Yes, certainly.

War is hell. War is not the long term answer, but throughout history wars have been necessary to make way for a newer, better age. The old age of native American culture(s) -- with many divided and separate and perpetually antagonistic "nations" -- was over; the new age of a one nation under God had arrived.

As your own references point out:

"King Philip's War (1675-76) is an event that has been largely ignored by the American public and popular historians. However, the almost two-year conflict between the colonists and the Native Americans in New England stands as perhaps the most devastating war in this country's history. One in ten soldiers on both sides were wounded or killed. At its height, hostilities threatened to push the recently arrived English colonists back to the coast. And, it took years for towns and urban centers to recover from the carnage and property damage." (Military History Online - King Philip's War)

""The horrors and devastation of Philip's war have no parallel in our history. The Revolution was a struggle for freedom; [highlight]the contest with Philip was for existence[/highlight]. The war lasted only about fourteen months; and yet the towns of Brookfield, Lancaster, Marlborough, Medfield, Sudbury, Groton, Deerfield, Hatfield, Hadley, Northfield, Springfield, Weymouth, Chelmsford, Andover, Scituate, Bridgewater, and several other places were wholly or partially destroyed, and many of the inhabitants were massacred or carried into captivity. During this short period, six hundred of our brave men, the flower and strength of the Colony, had fallen, and six hundred dwelling houses were consumed. Every eleventh family was houseless, and every eleventh soldier had sunk to his grave." Charles Hudson: A History of Marlborough" (Native Americans)

Just as the ancient Jews entered Canaan with the sword, killing all the Canaanite inhabitants, the Christians entered the new land of America and wielded the sword. Ideally, neither should have happened; but for God's unified nation to survive, those wars were necessary. Nobody wants it, but sometimes it is necessary. God seeks a unified world, but it is humankind that must fulfill it.


//

What if "God" has chosen to unify his world using Muslim Jihadists? Isn't that what they seek? A unified world under Islam demanded by Allah? I bet if you were born and raised in KofSA, you'd be right in line with Jihad - given what you've justified here.

What you justify is genocide. What happened to the Wampanoag is genocide. Nothing less.

EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK GENOCIDE IS JUSTIFIABLE!

 

[Fogbuster]

What if "God" has chosen to unify his world using Muslim Jihadists? Isn't that what they seek? A unified world under Islam demanded by Allah? I bet if you were born and raised in KofSA, you'd be right in line with Jihad - given what you've justified here.

What you justify is genocide. What happened to the Wampanoag is genocide. Nothing less.

EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK GENOCIDE IS JUSTIFIABLE!

I guess you chose not to read what I said. I said that the course of war -- not "genocide", but WAR; there's an important difference -- is never God's preferred way. God takes no pleasure in seeing people die in fighting their fellow human brothers and sisters. War is never, never, NEVER the way God wants people to follow, yet if push comes to shove, the one with the greater purpose must survive at all costs. Just as God told the Israelites to vanquish all the Canaanites -- lest the Hebrews fall into faithless secular and selfish ways -- Christians were allowed to push across the "New World" so that the world-view of Christianity -- and the germ of truth that you believe and follow -- be allowed to circumnavigate the world, surviving intact. Already enough Christian missionaries had been martyred (and afterward, too) that God said, "They must live to share the word."

All this because God sees one world, not two, three, or multiple worlds -- ONE world. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son, Jesus ..." Jn 3:16. The world is God's home, not just some nations or some religions or some peoples. Christianity has shown itself to be a faith of self-sacrifice, time and again, beginning with Jesus himself, and followed universally by millions upon millions of his believers. At some point God must say, "Enough is enough, the believers must live, not die."

Jews died for their faith for hundreds of years under the Pharoah and others, all to create one nation under God; Christians have died for their faith for 2000 years for the sake of one world under God. In both cases, there comes a time when the believers must not be exterminated any more, but must live to share the good news of God.

Please think of all the sacrifices people of faith have made in the past 5000 years, not just the conflicts they have had to engage in the course of their survival.

Islam came about merely because of the split between Christianity and Judaism. When Judaism and Christianity completely unite, Islam will follow.


//

 

[wistahpatsfan]

I guess you chose not to read what I said. I said that the course of war -- not "genocide", but WAR; there's an important difference -- is never God's preferred way. God takes no pleasure in seeing people die in fighting their fellow human brothers and sisters. War is never, never, NEVER the way God wants people to follow, yet if push comes to shove, the one with the greater purpose must survive at all costs. Just as God told the Israelites to vanquish all the Canaanites -- lest the Hebrews fall into faithless secular and selfish ways -- Christians were allowed to push across the "New World" so that the world-view of Christianity -- and the germ of truth that you believe and follow -- be allowed to circumnavigate the world, surviving intact. Already enough Christian missionaries had been martyred (and afterward, too) that God said, "They must live to share the word."

All this because God sees one world, not two, three, or multiple worlds -- ONE world. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son, Jesus ..." Jn 3:16. The world is God's home, not just some nations or some religions or some peoples. Christianity has shown itself to be a faith of self-sacrifice, time and again, beginning with Jesus himself, and followed universally by millions upon millions of his believers. At some point God must say, "Enough is enough, the believers must live, not die."

Jews died for their faith for hundreds of years under the Pharoah and others, all to create one nation under God; Christians have died for their faith for 2000 years for the sake of one world under God. In both cases, there comes a time when the believers must not be exterminated any more, but must live to share the good news of God.

Please think of all the sacrifices people of faith have made in the past 5000 years, not just the conflicts they have had to engage in the course of their survival.

Islam came about merely because of the split between Christianity and Judaism. When Judaism and Christianity completely unite, Islam will follow.


//

So...you see no difference between genocide and war? Did the Nazis commit genocide against the Jews? Did the Japanese commit genocide against the Manchurian Chinese? Did the European invaders of North America not commit genocide against the Indians? Please answer each one because the distinctions are important between "war" and "genocide". Think hard about what you're saying. There is such a thing as genocide. There is such a thing as war. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[wistahpatsfan]

I guess you chose not to read what I said. I said that the course of war -- not "genocide", but WAR; there's an important difference -- is never God's preferred way. God takes no pleasure in seeing people die in fighting their fellow human brothers and sisters. War is never, never, NEVER the way God wants people to follow, yet if push comes to shove, the one with the greater purpose must survive at all costs....//

Who were closer to "God"? The English or the Indians? ....and why?

 

[Fogbuster]

So...you see no difference between genocide and war? Did the Nazis commit genocide against the Jews? Did the Japanese commit genocide against the Manchurian Chinese? Did the European invaders of North America not commit genocide against the Indians? Please answer each one because the distinctions are important between "war" and "genocide". Think hard about what you're saying. There is such a thing as genocide. There is such a thing as war. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I'm not going to play 20 questions, wistah. If you have anything to add to what I've already said, or if you have some alternative ideas you'd like to offer, please feel free to do so.


//

 

[godef]

I'm not going to play 20 questions, wistah. If you have anything to add to what I've already said, or if you have some alternative ideas you'd like to offer, please feel free to do so.


//

Translation: "Duuuuuuh, I dunno!?" :stars2:

 

[wistahpatsfan]

I'm not going to play 20 questions, wistah. If you have anything to add to what I've already said, or if you have some alternative ideas you'd like to offer, please feel free to do so.


//

OH!
I'M SORRY!
I was under the impression that we were having a discussion, which sometimes involves one party asking the other a question. I meant no aggression. I was simply asking a question. You may chose not to answer it, of course.

So anyways....
Who were closer to "God"? The English or the Indians? ....and why?

 

[Fogbuster]

OH!
I'M SORRY!
I was under the impression that we were having a discussion, which sometimes involves one party asking the other a question. I meant no aggression. I was simply asking a question. You may chose not to answer it, of course.

So anyways....
Who were closer to "God"? The English or the Indians? ....and why?

You really want to know, or is this just a game of "gotcha" for you??


//

 

[wistahpatsfan]

You really want to know, or is this just a game of "gotcha" for you??


//

This was a discussion and debate about how religions use fear to maintain their existence.

You've made statements that condone genocide by suggesting that genocide cannot exist during war. You didn't take the care to read my post about Phillip and the English animals and you justified their actions against the Wampanoags because they were being done in the name of your God. When I called you on that you clammed uo and turned defensive. Now you've made it about you vs me. Not interested in that.

 

[Fogbuster]

This was a discussion and debate about how religions use fear to maintain their existence.

You've made statements that condone genocide by suggesting that genocide cannot exist during war. You didn't take the care to read my post about Phillip and the English animals and you justified their actions against the Wampanoags because they were being done in the name of your God. When I called you on that you clammed uo and turned defensive. Now you've made it about you vs me. Not interested in that.

So I already gave my answer about wars, they being the least desired choice, and yet that there has been a need for wars throughout history, so that a higher culture could survive, not be exterminated. I cited both ancient history re the Israelites entering the land of Canaan, where they slew all the Canaanites, and the similar situation of the Christians who settled in America and slew or subjugated by force the native American Indians. Both are very similar. Were either of them the *most desirable* choice? No. Were both used to ensure that the Hebrew and Christian cultures would survive? I believe so.

In the case of the Christians landing in America I do believe they had a better foundation for dealing with the native Americans than did the Israelites entering Canaan, but of course I know little more about the Israelites entering Canaan other than in the Old Testament; it seems they were between a rock and a very hard place. For the Christians I believe they could have -- and should have -- used a more moderate approach with the native Americans; and I believe there was far too much overkill wrought by the European settlers, though again the atrocities they faced from some native Americans were sometimes significant, with whole towns and villages being slaughtered and burned down.

You also asked whether the native Americans or the English Christians were "closer to God". My answer would be that both are equally close to God's heart, but that the Christians had a more advanced viewpoint toward making a unified world under God, whereas the native American cultures were divided and perpetually in conflict due to a more limited understanding of the purpose of God, the Creator of all. This itself stemmed from the difference between a more vague shamanistic faith of the native Americans and the kind of faith that you cited coming from Jesus: "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." The life and teachings of Jesus were on a higher plane than any other man who had ever lived at that time.


//

 

[wistahpatsfan]

So I already gave my answer about wars, they being the least desired choice, and yet that there has been a need for wars throughout history, so that a higher culture could survive, not be exterminated. I cited both ancient history re the Israelites entering the land of Canaan, where they slew all the Canaanites, and the similar situation of the Christians who settled in America and slew or subjugated by force the native American Indians. Both are very similar. Were either of them the *most desirable* choice? No. Were both used to ensure that the Hebrew and Christian cultures would survive? I believe so.

In the case of the Christians landing in America I do believe they had a better foundation for dealing with the native Americans than did the Israelites entering Canaan, but of course I know little more about the Israelites entering Canaan other than in the Old Testament; it seems they were between a rock and a very hard place. For the Christians I believe they could have -- and should have -- used a more moderate approach with the native Americans; and I believe there was far too much overkill wrought by the European settlers, though again the atrocities they faced from some native Americans were sometimes significant, with whole towns and villages being slaughtered and burned down.

You also asked whether the native Americans or the English Christians were "closer to God". My answer would be that both are equally close to God's heart, but that the Christians had a more advanced viewpoint toward making a unified world under God, whereas the native American cultures were divided and perpetually in conflict due to a more limited understanding of the purpose of God, the Creator of all. This itself stemmed from the difference between a more vague shamanistic faith of the native Americans and the kind of faith that you cited coming from Jesus: "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you." The life and teachings of Jesus were on a higher plane than any other man who had ever lived at that time.


//

Your understanding of history seems to be based on a system of beliefs more than the need to understand the reality of the events. As long as that is the way most people understand history, we will be doomed to commit genocide repeatedly and justify it on a set of "beliefs". That's not good enough, IMO.

If you consider Native American cultures to be inferior because of a lack of social and religious complexity, there is nothing I can say. That seems to be your operating criteria for attaching a group of people's right to exist and and be free from slaughter at the hands of the more "sophisticated" Jesus People. Confusing to me in the context of a "loving" and "just" diety.

What kind of Supreme Being lets these things happen? Is It simply the Master Programmer for a demented game of Cosmic Stratego?

 

[Fogbuster]

Your understanding of history seems to be based on a system of beliefs more than the need to understand the reality of the events. As long as that is the way most people understand history, we will be doomed to commit genocide repeatedly and justify it on a set of "beliefs". That's not good enough, IMO.

If you consider Native American cultures to be inferior because of a lack of social and religious complexity, there is nothing I can say. That seems to be your operating criteria for attaching a group of people's right to exist and and be free from slaughter at the hands of the more "sophisticated" Jesus People. Confusing to me in the context of a "loving" and "just" diety.

What kind of Supreme Being lets these things happen? Is It simply the Master Programmer for a demented game of Cosmic Stratego?

Wistah, the "way" of life already exists; there is *nothing* that you or I or anyone else can do about it. What is that "way"? It is very much what you said at the top: "Do unto others what you would like them to do unto you."

Now, how can such a credo expand to include *all* humankind, not just one race, not just one culture, not just one geographical area?? There needs to be an internal imperative to reach out, at one's own expense, and share the hope, promise, and good news of the "way". And, although every person has the capacity to appreciate this way, historical tragedies have caused walls -- sometimes huge and never before scaled walls -- to be erected. Somehow, some way, those walls need to come down.

Historically, for example, Christians have always paid the price for sharing this "good news". Christians have been martyred everywhere they first existed, and everywhere they went to share this news. From the earliest times of living in the catacombs, when the sport of the Roman Empire was to use Christians as human torches to light up the roadways and to fight gladiators and wild beasts with only their bare hands, Christians have always paid the price for believing in and sharing the "good news".

If the news is good, it should be shared. If it is shared and faces opposition, how much sacrifice is enough?? For example, here in Lithuania, one of the last parts of Europe to accept Christianity, the earliest "missionaries" were angry Teutonic knights from Germany, fresh from their frustrations at war (and defeat) in the Crusades. They tried to subjugate the Lithuanians (and Latvians, and Estonians) by force, with the sword. The Lietuvans were the last to surrender, and it was only after some more gentle Franciscan monks came and were martyred, and then the Teutonic knights returned, more bloodshed, and then finally the Lithuanian duke told the head of the knights he would write to the Pope to ask if the knights' way was *the* essence of the Christian faith. The Pope intervened to have the knights stop their brutal campaign, and Lithuania became Christian, finally.

The "way" is right, but how it is presented makes all the difference in the world. As for the Christians going to America, yes, there was too much arrogance toward the native Americans, as I have said, and that was a mistake by the European settlers, a mistake we are now paying for; but the essential message of Christ is always good. We need to strive to fulfill Jesus' command: "You, therefore, must be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect." Mt 5:48 In other words, Christ expects to be as perfect as he is. "Perfect" in our love, true in our love. So the earliest Christian settlers in America had the right message -- as did the Teutonic knights -- but their method of sharing it was poor, as was the initial effort by the Teutonics.

//

 

[wistahpatsfan]

Wistah, the "way" of life already exists; there is *nothing* that you or I or anyone else can do about it. What is that "way"? It is very much what you said at the top: "Do unto others what you would like them to do unto you."

Now, how can such a credo expand to include *all* humankind, not just one race, not just one culture, not just one geographical area?? There needs to be an internal imperative to reach out, at one's own expense, and share the hope, promise, and good news of the "way". And, although every person has the capacity to appreciate this way, historical tragedies have caused walls -- sometimes huge and never before scaled walls -- to be erected. Somehow, some way, those walls need to come down.

Historically, for example, Christians have always paid the price for sharing this "good news". Christians have been martyred everywhere they first existed, and everywhere they went to share this news. From the earliest times of living in the catacombs, when the sport of the Roman Empire was to use Christians as human torches to light up the roadways and to fight gladiators and wild beasts with only their bare hands, Christians have always paid the price for believing in and sharing the "good news".

If the news is good, it should be shared. If it is shared and faces opposition, how much sacrifice is enough?? For example, here in Lithuania, one of the last parts of Europe to accept Christianity, the earliest "missionaries" were angry Teutonic knights from Germany, fresh from their frustrations at war (and defeat) in the Crusades. They tried to subjugate the Lithuanians (and Latvians, and Estonians) by force, with the sword. The Lietuvans were the last to surrender, and it was only after some more gentle Franciscan monks came and were martyred, and then the Teutonic knights returned, more bloodshed, and then finally the Lithuanian duke told the head of the knights he would write to the Pope to ask if the knights' way was *the* essence of the Christian faith. The Pope intervened to have the knights stop their brutal campaign, and Lithuania became Christian, finally.

The "way" is right, but how it is presented makes all the difference in the world. As for the Christians going to America, yes, there was too much arrogance toward the native Americans, as I have said, and that was a mistake by the European settlers, a mistake we are now paying for; but the essential message of Christ is always good. We need to strive to fulfill Jesus' command: "You, therefore, must be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect." Mt 5:48 In other words, Christ expects to be as perfect as he is. "Perfect" in our love, true in our love. So the earliest Christian settlers in America had the right message -- as did the Teutonic knights -- but their method of sharing it was poor, as was the initial effort by the Teutonics.

//

Bu11sh!t!

 

[Fogbuster]

Bu11sh!t!

Wow, that's *heavy*, man.



//

 

[wistahpatsfan]

Wow, that's *heavy*, man.



//

Simply more brevity for the sake of clarity.

All of your points are drenched in subjectivity. To back up your assertions about God and genocide (or lack of it) you leap to conclusions and make statements based on pure faith. To reinforce your contentions about historical claims you refer to other highly questionable and fable-ridden historical claims that are undoubtedly colored by the culture you are presently a part of.

You use the examples of Christian "martyrdom" as if Christians held a special place in the anthology of Roman persecution. They don't. They're simply one of many.

About genocide... Do you even think there is such a thing? Every example of genocide we ever talk about is either explained away, justified, or deflected over to some other example that seems "worse". You don't seem to think the anhillation of North and South American native races and cultures were genocide, even though most people would agree that it is understood.

In the end, the message of peace and love is meaningless if it is presented by means of rape, mass murder and cultural genocide.

 

[Fogbuster]

Simply more brevity for the sake of clarity.

All of your points are drenched in subjectivity. To back up your assertions about God and genocide (or lack of it) you leap to conclusions and make statements based on pure faith. To reinforce your contentions about historical claims you refer to other highly questionable and fable-ridden historical claims that are undoubtedly colored by the culture you are presently a part of.

You use the examples of Christian "martyrdom" as if Christians held a special place in the anthology of Roman persecution. They don't. They're simply one of many.

About genocide... Do you even think there is such a thing? Every example of genocide we ever talk about is either explained away, justified, or deflected over to some other example that seems "worse". You don't seem to think the anhillation of North and South American native races and cultures were genocide, even though most people would agree that it is understood.

In the end, the message of peace and love is meaningless if it is presented by means of rape, mass murder and cultural genocide.

If that's the only thing you see in religion, then I do feel sorry for you. The sincere offerings of lives and fortunes that so many have made lives on, never forgotten, always a benchmark for those who choose to accept and believe things as they are. Purity and honest good will are NOT outside the realm of human ability.

As he said: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."



//