To: The Lion Roars; dangus
3 centuries of christian rule and yet survive.
Dude -- British rule was not "Christian" rule in the sense that Islamic rule was, well Islamic rule. The Brits were interested in trade first and foremost. The PORTUGUESE were interested in spreading the word of God.
239 posted on
04/12/2006 11:31:54 PM PDT by
Cronos
(Remember 9/11. Restore Hagia Sophia! Sola Scriptura leads to solo scriptura.)
To: Cronos
Dude -- British rule was not "Christian" rule in the sense that Islamic rule was, well Islamic rule. The Brits were interested in trade first and foremost. The PORTUGUESE were interested in spreading the word of God. agreed and i made that point too. for example it is said that the islamic rule of india resulted in the massacre of about 50-70 millin people (from memory). the slammies also destroyed all hindu temples and built mosques over them.
but having said that. the british also had conversion as part of their agenda. maybe not as item #1 or item #2 but it was there on their list.
To: Cronos
>> The PORTUGUESE were interested in spreading the word of God. <<
I don't know about that. I'm not sure about Portuguese intents in the 19th century, but in the 16th century, the Protuguese rulers were pretty much the pariahs of the "Catholic" world, for being godless. OTOH, they certainly seemed to have converted more than the British did.
266 posted on
04/13/2006 5:30:39 AM PDT by
dangus
(Church: "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." Me: "US gets new HOV lane.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson