Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies ]


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.

248 posted on 04/12/2006 11:57:23 PM PDT by The Lion Roars
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies ]

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.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson