Play Mythy For Me.
Posted on 11/02/2019 11:18:31 AM PDT by rktman
Every Columbus Day, liberals insist that the story of European colonization is a simple narrative of good versus evil: horrible Europeans came upon innocent Native Americans, introducing slavery, exploitation, and oppression. A massive archaeological discovery blows one of many gaping holes in this narrative. While Europeans did indeed do horrible things, the natives weren't exactly innocent.
Two hundred and fifty skeletons of children between the ages of 4 and 14 have been unearthed at Huanchaco, Peru, in what experts say is likely the world's largest child-sacrifice site. Huanchaco is a site of the Chimú culture (1200-1400), a predecessor to the mighty Inca Empire, which also carried out child sacrifices.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
And it still happens in our “civilized” world...
Read post 80... This one apparently wasn’t covered up well enough.
Children are sacrificed everyday and sadly all too many of our fellow citizens either don’t care or me think it’s fine.
Nobody here is arguing against the point that "old world cultures were absolutely just as barbaric as the new world savages". That's your own straw dog.
But there are two *other* points here that you're ignoring. First point is within the title of the article itself: "Largest Child-Sacrifice Graveyard Strikes Huge Blow to Native American Innocence Myth". The "noble red men" myth and its companion "evil white men who destroyed the innocence of the New World" myth have long been foisted on us by the Left. This article is yet more useful ammo for those of us (apparently not including you?) who fight the Left on their most-cherished lies such as this. That's the entire point of the posting. So by trying to refute that with "Hey! The Old World was just as bad" is entirely missing the point of the article.
The other point you seem to forget is the specific one of yours that I am arguing with, namely that you responded to ckilmer's statement of: "human sacrifice was common in europe before christianity" --- with "Actually, human sacrifice and cannibalism was done in the name of Christianity," and you pointed for your proof to a chapter of a book from 1887 that proves nothing of the kind (re Crusades, by a moronic author who BTW considered the French Revolution the pinnacle of human achievement).
In point of fact, Christianity *did* end the practice of human sacrifice, which was widely found throughout the ancient world across numerous cultures and continents up until then.
And as I also pointed out, this Blood Libel of "Christian Cannibals!" that you so glibly repeat is based on exactly one accusation that is not backed up by the very people it was supposedly committed against.
"My perspective is not fogged or blinded by faith of any kind."
Except for your unwavering faith in "Christians BAD, Muslims GOOD".
Yup, let's compare the two cases.
1) Ritual sacrifice of 4-to-14 year olds on a mass scale in pre-Columbian Peru.
versus ...
2) An Irish orphanage + unwed-mother's birthing facility that was opened over two decades before antibiotics were mass produced, ie in an era where infant mortality rates were sky high compared to today. And in this grossly overcrowded, understaffed, under-supplied facility in an impoverished nation that had just won its independence, children who died of "tuberculosis, convulsions, measles, whooping cough, malnutrition and influenza" - ie the same diseases that infants *not* in this home were dying of - were placed in a septic tank, no doubt to use the meager financial resources to feed undernourished mouths instead of paying for headstones & coffins & gravedigger's services.
And these two cases are comparable because ..... er, umm, *why* is that again? Please explain it to me.
BTW, I notice that in all of the many articles slamming these nuns as ogres, no "journalists" bother to tell us what the overall infant death rates were in Ireland during this pre-antibiotic era, so that we can compare apples to apples. Also, I noticed that all of the quotes of this orphanage's high annual death rates go as far as 1947 and no further. Why don't they mention the death rates from 1947 to the facility's closing in 1961? Could it be that they fell dramatically after 1947? Hmm! What a coincidence. 1946-1947 also happens to be exactly the years when mass-produced antibiotics were first available. Or *is* that a coincidence?
But what the hey, inconvenient facts can be ignored as long as the PC Narrative is served, which in this case is "Nuns are evil! ... (and let's not forget those murderous albino priests)"
See my response. And yes, the anti-Catholic / anti-Christian muckrakers *did* indeed cover up a whole lot of pertinent facts.
...and then the trains ran on time.
Play Mythy For Me.
Well he was Italian.
Ah, but the libs insist that these “noble savages” must be forgiven for their sins, but white people?
Never.
Moral relatavism: when you believe in everything you believe in nothing.
In Italian of course. :-)
Once again, I defend no faith at all, not one, I am now without faith at all period because I have yet to find a truly honest one without hypocrisy. I am first and foremost a strict Constitutionalist and “actually” believe in the freedom of religion, or god forbid, “any lack there of” if it does not impose, oppress, or harm the constitutional protections of the INDIVIDUAL. I don’t care what the source is, radical extremism, hatred, and intolerance are the roots of all the conflict in the world.
And this is not selective, sharia and Christian extremists both would love to have government universally force their faith down the throats of the individual against their will. THIS concept I have a problem with, and so would you if it was sharia. So you can quit labeling me as “if you are not christian then you are a leftist muslim”, this is where your extremism exposes it’s self. If anything, I find some far eastern educations such as Taoism or Buddhism more honest than all the rest because they lack extremist hypocrisy, self denial, and they truly practice tolerance. But I am still committed to none at all.
As for the history of different cultures and faiths, objectively they speak for themselves. And “Nobody here is arguing against the point that “old world cultures were absolutely just as barbaric as the new world savages”. That’s your own straw dog.” but you now ignore the fact that this is EXACTLY what my whole perspective and topic was relating to the article from the very beginning of this discussion and before you purposely twisted my intentions and words. That you would do this is in it’s self a deceptive act of dishonesty. Putting words in the mouths of others is something I have the personal integrity to never do to another individual. So you would preach morals and integrity but not truly practice them yourself? Here lies the problem with hypocrisy I speak of, no matter what the source is...
"Actually, human sacrifice and cannibalism was done in the name of Christianity."
....I will assume that your silence means you hope we'll pretend you didn't say it, and "give you a Mulligan"?
Whatever. But your hatred of Christianity still shines through in each new posting, such as in your most recent one that equates Sharia with Christianity:
"... sharia and Christian extremists both would love to have government universally force their faith down the throats of the individual against their will."
Let me take a guess here: I'll bet you think Handmaid's Tale is a documentary, right? Or at least that it's "fiction so perilously close to truth that it's downright scary!!!" ... Right?
Considering Sharia Law as it has always been and still is practiced, and putting it side-by-side with the Christian faith, and seeing them as both the same thing, says more about your "faith" than you know.
"... blah blah Hypocrisy yaddayadda Christians blahblah Hypocrites yaddayadda Christian Extremists blahblah Hypocrisy ....."
It's rather odd that you seem blissfully unaware of the fact that your very words being posted under the user-name you have chosen, is in itself the very definition of Hypocrisy.
Actually I have absolutely no problem with Christianity at all. It is a very moral faith with very good common sense lessons to be shared and deserves the highest of respect as both a religion and a faith to be shared with humanity. It has the potential to truly be a pure and righteous faith above all others, but it’s not there yet.
The problem I have is with the extreme puritans who do not practice it as it was truly meant to be practiced. Those who chastise hatred, hypocrisy, and double standards and then exercise these very same themselves and claim a like kind wrong to be morally correct. Much of it goes against the very same morals of the faith they claim to practice. It’s the old adage “practice what you preach”, and many truly do not.
No, I have no problem with Christianity at all, just those who hide behind it and twist it to entertain and excuse their own intolerant prejudices. Those who would twist the context and meaning of the gospel to support and excuse their own wrong doings. Those who always judge the faults of others but never their own faults even based on their own doctrine. Those who are infallible and can never make or admit a possible mistake. I am pretty sure this is not what God taught or wanted. He did not teach absolute hatred and destruction of everything not Christian. This is man’s own personal twisted interpretation to satisfy himself and his own hangups.
The first step to proving a truly righteous faith is to admit that mistakes may have indeed been made. But by the men who claim the faith,. not by the faith it’s self, and not God or what he shared. But those men who wrongfully exercised sin in the name of faith. Until then, we cannot use history to learn from and not repeat these same unholy mistakes again. But to deny they ever happened when they truly did is not going to help prove the faith as truly righteous. And personally, I would indeed like to see it become a truly righteous faith without any reason for stigmas or persecution from other faiths. But because of man’s own fallacies and denial, it just has not quite got there yet as it is assumed by those who claim to practice it.
The Christian faith is not to blame at all, man is. And claiming faith does not make a man perfect and infallible as they would like to think. The path to true righteousness is for man to finally actually admit this reality and stop making the same mistakes, then excusing them or covering them up in the name of Christ.
I was about to answer your statements about Christianity's faults (hypocrisy ... “practice what you preach”, "not there yet" ....), but discovered that you answered yourself in the last line with the same answer I was going to provide! To wit, "The Christian faith is not to blame at all, man is."
Any religion practiced by humankind can never be faultless due to the species that practices it. The same applies to any organization of any kind, religious or not, whose members are human. (But this only applies to fallible humans. I've never yet run into an infallible one, but I'll let you know if I do).
This all comes back to the "Hypocritical Christians" meme that's been bandied about for millenia. Most people who utter this have little understanding of the Christian concept of sin. If, for example, I see a man yelling at his kids and I tell him, "Don't do that. It's a sin. I never do that..." but in reality I *do* do that, then I am a hypocrite. But if I say, "Don't do that. It's a sin, and I should know, because I do it on occasion and feel badly about it afterwards and apologize to my kids when I cool down...." then I am *not* a hypocrite, at least in my eyes.
But many non-Christians wouldn't agree with that second part. They strip away all context and simply assert: "That Christian is a hypocrite because they sin too!" They give no credit to a Christian who acknowledges that he/she is a sinner who is trying hard to sin less but knows they will never achieve perfection. "If it's a Christian, then it's a hypocrite. QED."
Yes, I too have run across thousands of hypocritical Christians in my life.
But there's just one little problem here: Somewhere between 95% & 99% of them were fictitious characters in movies, TV series and books.
I have known precious few Christians who actually live up (down) to Hollywood's near-monolithic portrayal of Christians.
And people I've met who insist they have *personally* known huge numbers of Christian hypocrites, aren't able to substantiate it. If you delve a bit to strip away all the Hollywood-Fake-Christians from the list of Christians they actually know, you'll usually find that the remainder are people who they briefly met once, who happened to utter some phrase that caused them to make the connection between that person and Hollywood Christian Mannequins who use the same language. Or who said they supported some issue or some candidate that triggers the non-Christian to close their mind and suddenly become 100% certain of everything that's in the heart of the other person.
I don't think people realize just how powerfully their beliefs / world-views are affected by the Cultural Engines and the elites who run them. With the decades-long nonstop torrent of abuse towards Christians, people tend to prejudge, such that someone self-IDing as a Christian will automatically make them guilty of hypocrisy before anything else is said. And unless they can convince their accusers otherwise with a mountain of evidence, they will be added to the list of "yet another hypocritical Christian I know!"
BTW, on a tangent: Hollywood also convinces a lot of young leftists that they know just exactly "how conservatives speak" based on innumerable, hollow, fake portrayals they have ingested from the tube. It's hilarious, when I'm doing sidewalk counter-protests against lefties, how some will try to infiltrate your side of the street, hoping to blend in by affecting some supposedly "conservative dialect" that they are certain will fool real conservatives.
"[God] did not teach absolute hatred and destruction of everything not Christian."
If you have actually met a living human being like this, let me know. I would like to study them. Seriously. (Dementia-sufferers excluded).
"It has the potential to truly be a pure and righteous faith above all others, but it’s not there yet."
Well! In at least one respect, you seem to have more faith in Christianity than I do. I'm only familiar with one place that talks about "pure religion" - in James:
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
The orphans & widows part is easy enough. But the 2nd part is a deal-killer.
Next time you have some time, and your cleric leader has some time, sit down and ask him to be honest without mentioning names what some of the problems are that he has to deal with from his congregation behind closed doors. And if he is an honest cleric he will share some of these serious issues. It is not the rosy situation you think it is. It is not what you see on it’s face, many have some serious skeletons hidden in their closet. How do I know? Because I was once clergy, I dealt with this more than I wanted too and even saw it in my own peers. I even found myself going south in a bad direction with hypocrisy a few times. Even as Clergy I was not a pure and righteous Christian and will be the very first to judge myself and acknowledge this fact without denial. It was not the faith, it was me.
But this is the undeniable nature of man, and it is everywhere hidden in all closets, no one or no doctrine is immune from human nature. And it is older than history has recorded.
In my 20s in a small Methodist church in Boulder that I dearly loved and was extremely active in (choir + a half dozen committees & small groups), I watched a vibrant, loving, living, caring church with full pews, turn into a broken empty shell of itself in 2 years because the Denver-based bishop did a favor for other bishops in helping them with the game of "move the lemon" == a pastor & his wife who were truly evil master manipulators who literally destroyed every church they touched by splitting them down the middle. After destroying so many churches in MS that everyone knew about him and refused to take him on, they moved him to Alaska to destroy a few more, necessitating a move to Colo where he finally reached retirement age and was no longer a problem for the bishops.
In my 30s I witnessed a married assoc. pastor who was set to soon become the head pastor of a very large church, give into temptation with a pretty divorcee he was counseling, and throw away his career (but not his marriage fortunately).
And I've watched honest, godly, humble pastors get pushed around and financially abused by as few as 1 or 2 Alpha-type church board members who can dominate the others into going along with whatever power play they're into at the moment, with the loser being the pastor.
And I've seen conmen pushing dubious investments, usually of the ponzi genre, join churches not to pray but to prey on members who tend to be less suspicious of fellow church members.
But in the overall scheme of things, I say.... so what?? I've seen all these and much worse - orders of magnitude worse - behaviors in non-church institutions.
It's not churches & businesses & civic groups & schools & political parties & clubs & and every other type of organization that I have lost faith in. No, my innocent faith in the goodness of all members of the human race is what was destroyed early in life. Some people are close to being angels, some close to being demons, and the rest somewhere in the middle. Any group of people will have some mix of these, and all you can do is walk in with your eyes wide open. What other choice do we have? We have the human race on the one hand, versus the ...... umm, I must've forgot that the Neanderthals were wiped out .... so I guess we have only one choice after all.
Bottom line: My lifetime of good/great experiences with churches & their staffs & members far, far, far outweighs - in both quantity & quality - all the negative experiences. If it hasn't for you, then I'm truly sorry for your luck of the draw. But please at least try to take a 2nd look at the history of what the historic church - even with all of their many failings - did to end the barbaric practices of human sacrifice & cannibalism. (Too bad the Christian abolitionists had to wait so many centuries more for final victory)
You have obviously only seen the tip of the iceberg. That is good, what you don’t know won’t hurt you. As for myself, I have seen more than I care to ever see again and why I got out and will never go back to any religious doctrine.
If you really want to go there, the story of the crucifixion and communion has been interpreted as a metaphorical form of sacrifice and cannibalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.