Just watching a PBS show on Middle ages

[Brian37]

It touches upon the Knight's  Templar to Charles the first. And the infamous York "Clifford's" Tower.  Several centuries history. 

I really do not want to hear shit about how Christianity cannot be as brutal as Islam. 

All the Kings of antiquity on the British Islands fought each other and many thought of themselves as the head of their church sect. 

When the conservatives in America talk about "religious freedom" they mean the same fucking thing as the theocratic Kingships of the British Islands history. The freedom to dominate having nothing to do with secular law we know today.

The only thing that is keeping the west from looking like the east is our common law. The west became more civil in spite of religion, not because of it. 


They did kill in the name of their religion, just as today we hear talk of our right wing claiming they will "defend"  their "rights".

[Minimalist]

A bloodbath which culminated in the 30 Years War and finally convinced Europeans to tell these holy hackers to go fuck themselves.

[Brian37]

I have consistently said, no religion escapes this. You can find religious brutality in our entire history as a species globally aimed in all directions.

I just try to remind those in the west we should not be complacent in thinking we will always be more civil, we haven't always been, even in our secular history in modern times.

Religion is the WORST way to conduct political diplomacy.

[Minimalist]

You can find religious brutality in our entire history as a species globally aimed in all directions.

Actually, it is a monotheistic perversion.  Generally speaking the ancients did not do it.  The Romans were famous for incorporating the gods of a conquered area into their own pantheon.  When the Greeks moved East they ran into the Zoroastrians in Persia and seem to have spread their ideas via Hellenism in a number of cases.  They might conquer territory and kill people but it was usually simple greed or expansionist tendencies.  Its roughly akin to when the religitards say "Stalin killed millions to advance atheism."  No, he didn't.  He killed millions who resisted communism/collectivization.  That is somewhat different than Charlesmagne who executed 4,500 pagans because they refused to become xtians.

When the Egyptians overran Canaan they did not obliterate the Canaanite pantheon.  They built temples to their own gods in their primary garrison town of Bet Shean but they didn't give a rat's ass what the Canaanites worshiped.  Egyptian religion was for Egyptians.  It wasn't for export.  In the Amarna library of the 14th century BC the ruler of "Jerusalem" was called Abdi-Heba which means "Servant of Heba."  Heba was a Hurrian (Syrian) goddess but the Egyptians didn't care.  They put him in charge.

[Brian37]

You can find religious brutality in our entire history as a species globally aimed in all directions.

Actually, it is a monotheistic perversion.  Generally speaking the ancients did not do it.  The Romans were famous for incorporating the gods of a conquered area into their own pantheon.  When the Greeks moved East they ran into the Zoroastrians in Persia and seem to have spread their ideas via Hellenism in a number of cases.  They might conquer territory and kill people but it was usually simple greed or expansionist tendencies.  Its roughly akin to when the religitards say "Stalin killed millions to advance atheism."  No, he didn't.  He killed millions who resisted communism/collectivization.  That is somewhat different than Charlesmagne who executed 4,500 pagans because they refused to become xtians.

When the Egyptians overran Canaan they did not obliterate the Canaanite pantheon.  They built temples to their own gods in their primary garrison town of Bet Shean but they didn't give a rat's ass what the Canaanites worshiped.  Egyptian religion was for Egyptians.  It wasn't for export.  In the Amarna library of the 14th century BC the ruler of "Jerusalem" was called Abdi-Heba which means "Servant of Heba."  Heba was a Hurrian (Syrian) goddess but the Egyptians didn't care.  They put him in charge.

Name me one point in history worldwide, where polytheism or monotheism didn't have conflict, even within the same umbrella label.

Even the Egyptians depicted their conquests in war and praised their gods in those mythologies, just as the Greeks and Romans did.

The only thing one can argue in all of human history, one could find one more tolerant leader at a certain period than another. 

If you are arguing that monotheism made things worse, that might be a better argument, but even prior to that polytheism worldwide had it's conflicts. 

Point is, if Christians and Jews and Muslims were all wiped off the planet right now, you would still be dealing with a social species grouping and fighting each other. 

If our planet were a majority atheist, same thing, we'd still be fighting over resources.

[Anomalocaris]

Christians have certainly abused even those whom they’ve manage to convert far more than muslims. Look how they’ve treated the native Americans. It’s not a coincidence that African Americans should find Islam more amenable to equality than Christianity.

[Minimalist]

Name me one point in history worldwide, where polytheism or monotheism didn't have conflict, even within the same umbrella label.

You're doing the same thing that religitards do.  You are saying that the REASON for the war/pogrom was always to spread their religion.  If I break into your house and steal your tv it is because I am a robber.... not that I want to force you to convert to my particular superstition.

[Brian37]

Name me one point in history worldwide, where polytheism or monotheism didn't have conflict, even within the same umbrella label.

You're doing the same thing that religitards do.  You are saying that the REASON for the war/pogrom was always to spread their religion.  If I break into your house and steal your tv it is because I am a robber.... not that I want to force you to convert to my particular superstition.

Name me one aspect of human life that is not run by humans?




I am saying that anyone can point out more or less violent periods in human history. Spreading or not spreading does not change that humans are tribal. 

It is like arguing the difference between Superman and Darth Vader.

Once you buy a club mentality, most get sold that at birth. In human history you can certainly find pockets of "live and let live' more than others. But, no religion is immune to our species overwhelming bent to defending that which is local.

[Anomalocaris]

Religion is the WORST way to conduct political diplomacy.

That depends on whether you are only pushing bullshit onto others, or if you buy into it yourself.

---

Name me one point in history worldwide, where polytheism or monotheism didn't have conflict, even within the same umbrella label.

Polytheists are almost by definition more willing to overlook your worship of a god who is hitherto not in their pantheon.

You can say those who kill for religion can be found in every creed. But fact remains monotheism systematically propounds more reasons for its followers to do so.

[Minimalist]

What you said in post #3 was that all religions were brutal.  There is precious little evidence of this in antiquity.  People may have been brutal but they were not motivated by religious zeal.

On a very small scale the jews were the first to demand conversion when they conquered Galilee in the late 2d century BC.  Two things happened to forestall that process.  First, it was not terribly popular among their own people.  { THEY aren't "real jews" like us! }.  Second, the Hasmonean kingdom which started that process soon dissolved into dynastic squabbles and civil war and ended up overrun by the Romans.... who granted the jews religious toleration as was their custom.

Several centuries later as various xtian factions either obtained or lost imperial favor they used that power to oppress groups which were not with them, be they xtian or pagan.  They perfected religious oppression.  Eventually the muslims learned much from them but it was hardly immediate.