[quote]Karado wrote:
Anyone who digs a little deeper and learns the origins and similarities is aware.
Islam’s roots are in “Baal” Worship…most Christians don’t know that 'cause they don’t
read their Bibles…Yes, Islam WAS warned about in scripture, it just wasn’t called “Islam” back then.
Islam is repackaged polytheism.
Islam is paganism in monotheistic wrapping paper.
Islam is veiled neo-polytheism.
[/quote]
Coming from a presumed at least nominal Christian, thats rich.
Especially if you happened to be Catholic.
The Trinity, the saints, the whorship of Mary…[/quote]
The Mary thing is really interesting from an Anthropological standpoint. Black Madonna, and the Guadalupe…
I’ve read some really interesting cultural stuff about the connection between, “The Virgin” / Our Lady of Guadalupe and the La Llorona.
To some, there is folklore dualism where La Llorona represents the mother of Mexico, crying and yearning for her lost children, where the Virgin Guadalupe is the other depiction which presented herself to Juan Diego. Both are supposed depictions and transformations of Coatlicue, the Aztec mother Goddess.
Also keep in mind what Christianity did to the new world.
[/quote]
Civilize it.
[/quote]
That’s one way to look at it. If you have indigenous ancestry who’s culture is all but extinct as a result of religious, military and mainly biological warfare, you might look at is as mass killing and butchering of a culture. But, that’s just objectivity speaking.
There was no “biological warfare” done by the Spaniards in Mexico in the other than the lack
of immunity the Indians had in succumbing to the diseases they died from en masse.
The Indian Empires with killing each other within their own kind anyway with those horrific
“Apocalypto” ritualistic genocides had to be stopped cold with a ‘lesser of two evil’
option of conquest genocide from the Spaniards, and a “cultural reboot” that in the long
run made the people there much better looking, changed the language, and did it in a way
where Mexicans don’t have any animosity present day for what the Conquistadors did,
which is far cry from the centuries old feuds and animosities in other parts of the world.
There’s just as much institutional racism down there as well, it’s glaringly obvious for example that EVERY major Newscaster is a white Spaniard who talks with a Mexican accent, and none of the super hot news ladies over don’t seem to have a hint of any Mayan or Incan blood in them…it’s obvious the Indian look even in Mexican Media isn’t “attractive” or photogenic on camera, even in Mexico’s annual “Nuestra Belleza Latina” Beauty Contest televised all over
Latin America, all the beauty contestants look friggin white…no Indian, or even “mestizo” lookin’ Chicks seem to be allowed.
Also keep in mind what Christianity did to the new world.
[/quote]
Civilize it.
[/quote]
That’s one way to look at it. If you have indigenous ancestry who’s culture is all but extinct as a result of religious, military and mainly biological warfare, you might look at is as mass killing and butchering of a culture. But, that’s just objectivity speaking. [/quote]
Most of them died because they had no way to fight of European diseases.
Also keep in mind what Christianity did to the new world.
[/quote]
Civilize it.
[/quote]
That’s one way to look at it. If you have indigenous ancestry who’s culture is all but extinct as a result of religious, military and mainly biological warfare, you might look at is as mass killing and butchering of a culture. But, that’s just objectivity speaking. [/quote]
Most of them died because they had no way to fight of European diseases.
Those would have died anyway. [/quote]
Yes, high estimations are 80-90% of the population died to disease. Kinda like how as a result of Rats, so many died in Europe to the black plague. Or something like the war of the worlds. Something completely alien showed up, wiped nearly everyone out with disease, then imposed culture and religion on the indigenous populace.
Also keep in mind what Christianity did to the new world.
[/quote]
Civilize it.
[/quote]
That’s one way to look at it. If you have indigenous ancestry who’s culture is all but extinct as a result of religious, military and mainly biological warfare, you might look at is as mass killing and butchering of a culture. But, that’s just objectivity speaking. [/quote]
Most of them died because they had no way to fight of European diseases.
Those would have died anyway. [/quote]
Yes, high estimations are 80-90% of the population died to disease. Kinda like how as a result of Rats, so many died in Europe to the black plague. Or something like the war of the worlds. Something completely alien showed up, wiped nearly everyone out with disease, then imposed culture and religion on the indigenous populace.
[/quote]
That is more or less what happened, yes.
Regrettable, but give that someone would have crossed the Atlantic eventually…
[quote]pat wrote:
Christians don’t kill you if you renounce the faith.[/quote]
Well, except for that whole Inquisition detour, you mean.
Probably should say “Christians haven’t killed anyone for renouncing Christianity for over 300 years, just during the first 1700 years or so of Christianity.”
Also keep in mind what Christianity did to the new world.
[/quote]
Civilize it.
[/quote]
That’s one way to look at it. If you have indigenous ancestry who’s culture is all but extinct as a result of religious, military and mainly biological warfare, you might look at is as mass killing and butchering of a culture. But, that’s just objectivity speaking. [/quote]
The indigenous americans were doing a pretty damn good job of killing each other when Europeans arrived.
Also keep in mind what Christianity did to the new world.
[/quote]
Civilize it.
[/quote]
Christianity had nothing to do with it. It was a corporate takeover.
Besides, seeing as how you had the whole slavery thing, the treatment of the native peoples and a few wars it seems like “civilized” might not be the right word.
Also keep in mind what Christianity did to the new world.
[/quote]
Civilize it.
[/quote]
That’s one way to look at it. If you have indigenous ancestry who’s culture is all but extinct as a result of religious, military and mainly biological warfare, you might look at is as mass killing and butchering of a culture. But, that’s just objectivity speaking. [/quote]
The indigenous americans were doing a pretty damn good job of killing each other when Europeans arrived.
Hence why the Europeans were successful.[/quote]
That had nothing to do with it.
The Europeans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries weren’t capable of civilizing anybody. They were too busy building piles of literally millions of corpses back home. Whether you cut somebody open because the sun-God is thirsty or because that somebody believes in Jesus in a slightly different way than you do or because you just really don’t like the French, you’re cutting somebody open for a shitty reason.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The Europeans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries weren’t capable of civilizing anybody. They were too busy building piles of literally millions of corpses back home. Whether you cut somebody open because the sun-God is thirsty or because that somebody believes in Jesus in a slightly different way than you do or because you just really don’t like the French, you’re cutting somebody open for a shitty reason.[/quote]
Not arguing any of this. Just pointing out that domination and subjugation have been going on since before recorded history. There just seems to be a tendency over the last half century to view things differently when the victors are of Caucasian/European decent.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The Europeans of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries weren’t capable of civilizing anybody. They were too busy building piles of literally millions of corpses back home. Whether you cut somebody open because the sun-God is thirsty or because that somebody believes in Jesus in a slightly different way than you do or because you just really don’t like the French, you’re cutting somebody open for a shitty reason.[/quote]
Not arguing any of this. Just pointing out that domination and subjugation have been going on since before recorded history. There just seems to be a tendency over the last half century to view things differently when the victors are of Caucasian/European decent. [/quote]
I agree completely. The word “civilize” is what I find out of place here. The conquest was simply business as usual for mankind, including the natives.
It is perplexing how quickly a lot of people agree with Maher who my opinion in consistently wrong in most things he says.
Firstly you cant say regarding our current situation that history is not important or irrelevant? Is he kidding? We are only engaged in a 100 year war with a group of radicals because of something we did yesterday?? These conflicts have been going on for a very, very long time. I do like how he wants to disregard history yet most people in this forum brought it up on one form or another.
To say that muslim/islam is the only religion set on killing people is really just ass talking and I do agree with the professor that it is somewhat immoral/irrational for someone with a national television show to say such things. We have to remember that while Osama said he committed violent acts in the name of Mohammad, Bush claimed he committed similar acts in the name of Christ. That does in fact make it a holy way, a war over religion, a war over who’s god is right/wrong. Mostly all wars are financial, we hide behind our gods for justification and desire. The groups attacking each other are radicals; radicals in particular religions.
Christianity definitely has radical nut jobs that perform moderate to dangerous attacks but maybe not to the degree of mass or large murders but still they do kill in the name of god/Christ. To ignore this fact is ignorant and I think that is what Maher is across the board.
Like Jung says "
Besides, seeing as how you had the whole slavery thing, the treatment of the native peoples and a few wars it seems like “civilized” might not be the right word. [/quote]
This can apply to just about every civilization that has been organized on this Earth throughout history.
Let’s not act like European’s in the “New World” were some sort of odd ball exception to the rule here.
[quote]hipsr4runnin wrote:
It is perplexing how quickly a lot of people agree with Maher who my opinion in consistently wrong in most things he says.
Firstly you cant say regarding our current situation that history is not important or irrelevant? Is he kidding? We are only engaged in a 100 year war with a group of radicals because of something we did yesterday?? These conflicts have been going on for a very, very long time. I do like how he wants to disregard history yet most people in this forum brought it up on one form or another.
To say that muslim/islam is the only religion set on killing people is really just ass talking and I do agree with the professor that it is somewhat immoral/irrational for someone with a national television show to say such things. We have to remember that while Osama said he committed violent acts in the name of Mohammad, Bush claimed he committed similar acts in the name of Christ. That does in fact make it a holy way, a war over religion, a war over who’s god is right/wrong. Mostly all wars are financial, we hide behind our gods for justification and desire. The groups attacking each other are radicals; radicals in particular religions.
Christianity definitely has radical nut jobs that perform moderate to dangerous attacks but maybe not to the degree of mass or large murders but still they do kill in the name of god/Christ. To ignore this fact is ignorant and I think that is what Maher is across the board.
Like Jung says "[/quote]
I wrote a longer rebuttal to this, but it seems to not have gone through. I can’t summon the will to go at it again, so I’ll just say that you’re taking a couple of poorly-chosen words spoken by a man renowned for his ability to choose words poorly and trying to fit them into a moral equivalency that is as false as it is a ubiquitous fixture of the far left.
The causes of the Iraq War were many and many of them were stupid, but you’re crazy if you believe that religious fervor was a major player. (Or was Christopher Hitchens doing the work of the Cross with all those pro-war essays?) Osama bin Laden’s writings in the lead-up to 2001 were theological treatises on salvation and God’s will, peppered here and there with politics–the moral equivalent of which would have been Powell giving a fire and brimstone sermon to the UN.