Posted on 08/13/2002 7:59:31 AM PDT by Frapster
Ancient slaughter was repeated in the west when the mongol hordes conquered Europe.
Christianity introduced widespread religious slaughter to the west but they mostly killed each other, for example the Jews were banished, not killed, by the Inquisition.
But, it was Neitsche's throwing off of all religion and all morality that paved the way for modern mass-murder ala Hitler, et al.
The idea of racial superiority only dates to the 19th century, the word anti-semitism was first published in 1873, it was Czar Nicholas II that commissioned 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' in the early 1800s.
The rise in non-religious (anti-semitism is not religion-based) violence dates to the rise of the western democracies, in olden days the tyrant derived his power from the nobles, the modern politician derives his power from the masses and the masses can't be kept in aristocratic splendor, so excuses must be found. A perpetual scapegoat class must be maintained. Not many of the early 20th century politicans thought that their politics would be made real by the likes of Hitler, et al.
History is rife with 'messiahs' trying to reach the divine through pederasty. There is no compelling reason to believe that morality can only by found through religion.
Indeed.
Personally, I'd broaden the criticism of Christianity to include religion and its functional equivalents. In the case of theistic religions, the religion is used as a tool to justify one group's slaughter and/or subjugation of another group. With functional equivalents (i.e. substitutes) for religion, such as the personality cults of Stalinism or Maoism, the methods are similar, though aims and motivations might be somewhat different.
One big problem I have with this line of discussion is the use of the argument that those who killed and pillaged using the name of God weren't true Christians. Similarly, Socialists and Communists tend to claim that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et. al weren't true Socialists or Communists, that they distorted the principles of their political "faith" to further their own ends. Curious.
Regards,
Snidely
As the article I posted states - just because some perverted human in the past has used religion to promote their dispicable deeds does not mean they were in any way legitimate representations of that religion if it can be demonstrated that the teachings of that religion are in direct contradiction to the behavior of the individual or groups. You've not proved anything with your statement.
The only things you've successfully illustrated is that mankind is capable of awful acts against humanity and religion does not corner the market on that.
And lastly I would agree that morality cannot be found only in religion because I do not think that religion invented morality.
In response it is important to note that the author rightly points out three things. First - where people are involved the potential for evil becomes greater. No religion or ideology is immune. Secondly - to lump Christianity in with Socialism and Communism is to blindly ignore their significant differences. The author clearly distinguishes between the two and rightly so for they are as different as night and day which leads to the third point. In light of the distinct differences and the numbers discussed in this article it can certainly demonstrated that an absence of God greatly increases the potential for violence against humanity. Where God is present there is a significantly lesser potential for violence. But where man is present violence is surely to happen.
However, I think the argument that olden day Christians weren't Christian because they did bad things is very weak. The 'teachings of Christianity' is not a set thing, it has changed dramatically over the course of 2200 years. The medieval Christians who torched heretics believed that they were taking the man's life to save his immortal soul; they were saving him from hell.
2,200 years? Isn't that number large? Regardless, that's besides the point. In response to your comment - I think God will be the judge of whether the medieval church was following His teachings or not. But based on what I see in scripture I get the strong impression they were seriously misguided.
I agree with you that Christians who torched heretics were misguided, but I disagree that they weren't good Christians.
Jesus taught that loaning money at interest was a mortal sin, today we think that is misguided, but does that make Jesus not a good Christian?
If that's what Jesus taught then I'd say we're misguided - not him. However, I'll have to ask for a reference as this is the first time I've ever heard Jesus having been attributed with teaching such a thing.
I just wanted to make the point that the 'good' Christians of any era were the ones following the dominant doctrines, whether or not we view those doctrines as valid today.
Not all atheists are nihilists, I despise nihilists, they forget they are supported and comforted by the world's greatest Christian state (America is still, I think, a Christian nation, I mean, even the godless democrats invoke God's name when speaking in public) and if they were exposed to their politics made real, they would be the first to scream their heads off.
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.