NationStates Jolt Archive


Exposing the Hypocrisy of Christianity

Klonor
13-01-2006, 23:52
It seems, in the past few years, that it has become customary, dare I say trendy, to bemoan and besmirch Islam as an evil, violent, and fascist religion. But it is often forgotten that Christianity also has a smiliarly evil, violent, and fascist history of its own. Now, both religions are off-shoots of Judaism and descend from my own faith with many common beliefs and bonds. I pride myself on being fair-minded and un-judgmental of all religions and I feel that basing your views of all on the actions of a few will only lead to unjustified hatred, but too often the lessons learned in the study of Christianity go unremembered when dealing with Islam. Lessons such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps it would be better to grant Islam a bit of leeway when judging it. So, without further ado, a little history lesson on the shady past of the Christian faith.

CRUSADES

The Crusades were a series of wars by Western European Christians to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims. The Crusades were first undertaken in 1096 and ended in the late 13th century. The term Crusade was originally applied solely to European efforts to retake from the Muslims the city of Jerusalem, which was sacred to Christians as the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It was later used to designate any military effort by Europeans against non-Christians. And this is where the real purpose of my thread begins. I've always wondered how some people could make arguments on these boards when the evidence presented in previous posts points to the contrary. I wondered if it was because people did not read entire posts of length such as this. So I'm testing this fact. I bet there will be quite a few people to post on this thread based on the opening paragraph and the beginning of this paragraph. They won't see all this that I'm writing right here at all. And I will enjoy a good laugh. So, if you are reading this, please don't spoil it for me. Instead of posting and having a good laugh at my obnoxious trick, just simply reply with "I agree", and leave any private comments in my telegram box. And, if you are so inclined, make a similar post of your own, with it's own hidden message. Now back to the charade. Stick around through the next paragraph for another easter egg. In a broad sense the Crusades were an expression of militant Christianity and European expansion. They combined religious interests with secular and military enterprises. Christians learned to live in different cultures, which they learned and absorbed; they also imposed something of their own characteristics on these cultures. The Crusades strongly affected the imagination and aspirations of people at the time, and to this day they are among the most famous chapters of medieval history.

THE INQUISITION

The Inquisition was a judicial institution established by the papacy in the Middle Ages, charged with seeking out, trying, and sentencing persons guilty of heresy. In the early church the usual penalty for heresy was excommunication. With the establishment of Christianity as the state religion by the Roman emperors in the 4th century, heretics came to be considered enemies of the state, especially when violence and the disturbance of public order were involved. St. Augustine gave a somewhat reluctant approval to action by the state against heretics, but the church generally disapproved of coercion and physical penalties. And I'm back. I wonder how many people have even made it this far down even after reading the little message in the first paragraph. I imagine I've lost a few readers even though they knew I'd be back here. I think I will allow this thread to hover around like this for a while, depending on the amount of responses I get to the false subject compared to the responses concerning the actual intent. I know that this has probably been done before; I don't think I'm being particularly witty here, but I think this is going to be very amusing for me, to say the least. It is kind of like those tests you used to get in the first day of class in high school that told you to read through the entire instructions before starting, and in the instructions it told you to just answer the final question and hand it in. Then you could enjoy a little chuckle as you saw people struggle through the impossibly hard test, not realizing that a joke was being played upon them. At any rate, I've let this go on long enough, so I think I'm just about done. Just to recap, if you read all this, just respond with "I agree" so I know you got the joke without ruining the joke, and leave me a telegram with your reactions. Thanks. Oh, and check out the links I provide. And now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast. For those of you who spend way to much time on here, no, you're not seeing double, this is a re-posted thread. It was posted a few months ago by Sdaeriji and did really well and I thought it'd be good to bring it back. I got his permission first and added a few touches of my own, but that's really just these few sentences saying this is a re-post and a few words here and there to give it my feel. Enjoy! The grand inquisitor and his tribunal had jurisdiction over local tribunals in colonies such as Mexico and Peru, which were usually more concerned with sorcery than heresy. Holy Roman Emperor Charles V introduced the Inquisition into the Netherlands in 1522, where it failed to wipe out Protestantism. The Spanish established it in Sicily in 1517, but were unable to do so in Naples and Milan. Historians have noted that many Protestant lands had institutions as repressive as the Spanish Inquisition, such as the consistory in Geneva at the time of the French reformer John Calvin. The Inquisition was finally suppressed in Spain in 1834.

So, in conclusion, I think that Christians ought to approach their attitudes towards Islam with a little bit more civility, since Christianity has its own violent and unsavory past.

For some more information on the violent history of Christianity, I refer you to these sites.

http://www.time.com/archive/religion/christianity/h4587340293384673/article/hypocrisy/heylookifoundjimmyhoffabackhere/iamsuchajerk/4342328373593.html
http://www.newyorktimes.com/archive/scienceandreligion/article4328372639834/christianityandislam/ohmygod/bigfoot/iwonderifnessieisbackheretoo/234092347262983.html
http://www.english.aljazeera.net/culture/religion/NR/exeres/8b323237v23/thisiswhereameliaearhartcrashed/ibetalotofpeopleragonmeforincludinganaljazeeralink/7B09E3B6-0AED-496F-B5D8-39C7DCF65E44.htm
Sdaeriji
13-01-2006, 23:59
Hey!
Jocabia
14-01-2006, 00:01
Apparently, you meant to say the hypocrisy of SOME Christians. No worries. I'm happy to correct you.

As you say...

basing your views of all on the actions of a few will only lead to unjustified hatred

A truer statement was never said, so follow your own advice and admit you're only talking to those select Christians who judge Islam in such a manner. Islam is guilty of nothing. Christianity is guilty of nothing. Some Christians have done some bad things, even Christian leaders. Some Muslims have done some bad things, even Muslim leaders. The actions of SOME people in a faith have nothing to do with the faith itself, if such actions aren't actually a cornerstone of the faith.
Klonor
14-01-2006, 00:01
Are you sure you've read my post the whole way through? I'm almost positive you'd agree with me if you did.
JuNii
14-01-2006, 00:03
Great... another one of these threads... :rolleyes:


*Sits down with Mega Tub of Popcorn, ULTRA BIG GULP and some hot dogs for the flaming that will almost guarentee to appear.*
The Squeaky Rat
14-01-2006, 00:06
It seems, in the past few years, that it has become customary, dare I say trendy, to bemoan and besmirch Islam as an evil, violent, and fascist religion. But it is often forgotten that Christianity also has a smiliarly evil, violent, and fascist history of its own.

Not on this forum, believe me.
Jocabia
14-01-2006, 00:06
Are you sure you've read my post the whole way through? I'm almost positive you'd agree with me if you did.

I would agree with your views on all of Christianity? You blatantly attacked those that would make blanket statements about a faith and then in your title and in your statements did exactly that.

EDIT: Obviously if I don't comment you won't realize that I have a problem with the rest of what you said regardless of the purpose of your post. It took me a minute to figure out how to reply without spoiling it. Also, know that what you're doing is trolling.
Klonor
14-01-2006, 00:08
I really do think you need to read my opening post in its entirety. Trust me, it will doubtlessly convince you.
Jocabia
14-01-2006, 00:11
I really do think you need to read my opening post in its entirety. Trust me, it will doubtlessly convince you.

I did. I don't think your purposes forgive your statements. So I replied to them.
The Squeaky Rat
14-01-2006, 00:12
I really do think you need to read my opening post in its entirety. Trust me, it will doubtlessly convince you.

I dis agree.
Unabashed Greed
14-01-2006, 00:15
I would agree with your views on all of Christianity? You blatantly attacked those that would make blanket statements about a faith and then in your title and in your statements did exactly that.

EDIT: Obviously if I don't comment you won't realize that I have a problem with the rest of what you said regardless of the purpose of your post. It took me a minute to figure out how to reply without spoiling it. Also, know that what you're doing is trolling.


All I can say to this is that I agree with the OP, and I encourage you to read the entire post AGAIN as well ;)
Jocabia
14-01-2006, 00:16
In fact, I've decided since it is trolling that I'm willing to ruin your little joke. People won't read it because if it looks like a history lesson that has nothing to with the part they don't agree with they're not going to spend 10 minutes reading something that amounts to evidence that offers nothing to the point. People who disagree with your generalizations do not need to read your evidence to know that generalizations are bad, period. Reading the entire post will not be necessary for most people. It would be a waste of time. You set up your little 'experiment' for people to fail.

If this kind of thread wasn't against the rules and you wanted to do it right, you would right something where examining the evidence is actually necessary, like scientists have proven homosexuality is a choice or something like that. You could have posted all the information in the world about the Crusades and the Inquisition and it still wouldn't have supported a sweeping generalization like you made. Thus reading your evidence holds no value.
Jocabia
14-01-2006, 00:17
All I can say to this is that I agree with the OP, and I encourage you to read the entire post AGAIN as well ;)

Um, you don't notice my comment about trolling? You don't think I noticed his trollish remarks in the middle of his diatribes about the two historical events?
Unabashed Greed
14-01-2006, 00:18
In fact, I've decided since it is trolling that I'm willing to ruin your little joke. People won't read it because if it looks like a history lesson that has nothing to with the part they don't agree with they're not going to spend 10 minutes reading something that amounts to evidence that offers nothing to the point. People who disagree with your generalizations do not need to read your evidence to know that generalizations are bad, period. Reading the entire post will not be necessary for most people. It would be a waste of time. You set up your little 'experiment' for people to fail.

If this kind of thread wasn't against the rules and you wanted to do it right, you would right something where examining the evidence is actually necessary, like scientists have proven homosexuality is a choice or something like that. You could have posted all the information in the world about the Crusades and the Inquisition and it still wouldn't have supported a sweeping generalization like you made. Thus reading your evidence holds no value.


Killjoy...

EDIT, and you're only proving the OPs point at that.
Jocabia
14-01-2006, 00:23
Killjoy...

EDIT, and you're only proving the OPs point at that.

What that trolling is against the rules? Was that his point? What he predicts people will get annoyed by his behavior which is, of course, annoying and then what? People have to pretend it's not just to prove him wrong? He's right. People generally don't like trolls. And, yes, I'm a killjoy. I reported him/her.

He posted a comment that one can disagree with without reading the fake evidence. His comment could NEVER be true so reading the evidence is pointless. He might as well have said, "Blacks can't read", and then wrote a bunch of stuff that nobody would read or need to read to know that it's a sweeping generalization that cannot be true.
JuNii
14-01-2006, 00:24
In fact, [Snip] Perhaps, perhaps not.

I say sit back and let the thread prove itself.
Want some popcorn?
Kamsaki
14-01-2006, 00:25
Killjoy...

EDIT, and you're only proving the OPs point at that.
No he's not. He read it.

Curiously enough, I've noticed that people seem to be reading the start of Jocabia's posts, spotting the negative approach to the bluff material and then responding accordingly with "Dude, you didn't read it".

Funny ol' world. ^^;
Jocabia
14-01-2006, 00:26
No he's not. He read it.

Curiously enough, I've noticed that people seem to be reading the start of Jocabia's posts, spotting the negative approach to the bluff material and then responding accordingly with "Dude, you didn't read it".

Funny ol' world. ^^;

You noticed that too, huh? Only unlike the OP, that was not my intent. And here we see the difference between trolling and just a funny coincidence.
Unabashed Greed
14-01-2006, 00:27
No he's not. He read it.

Curiously enough, I've noticed that people seem to be reading the start of Jocabia's posts, spotting the negative approach to the bluff material and then responding accordingly with "Dude, you didn't read it".

Funny ol' world. ^^;

My point was that only the reflexively irate would even bother. Win-wink, nudge-nudge, Jacobia...
Bluzblekistan
14-01-2006, 00:29
well, if you are going to make such broad generalizations of Christianity being evil and that it had problems in the past, well, then I guess we should go back in time and criticize every single thing that: democracy did wrong, communism, facism, imperialism, all religions and organizations, and people, hell lets critisize the entire human race and say that we are all evil because some people have done very bad things in the past. To say Christianity should look at its history with the Crusades and the Inquisition and change its attidude towards Islam is well, pretty dumb. You make it sound like Jesus Christ himself commanded people to go out and forcefully convert all non-believers and then kill those who dont. Listen, people screw up. Some are born with their heads up their asses, and go and hijack the organization, religion for their own purposes. People corrupt things. Its human nature. To blaime religion only for the past happenings, well, thats like blaiming guns for killing people. ;)