As Christianity wanes, immoral behavior increases

Perhaps, and perhaps he was one cause of an immense disaster that is till reverberating.
He was one of the zealots who opposed Roman occupation and finally provoked the crackdown that destroyed the jewish nation and scattered the people.

And of course, today, we have the middle east on fire and the ongoing threat of nuclear war there precisely because Israel was finally re established.

Tnx, guys, what a favour.

"Jesus" himself had little to do with "Christianity", that was concocted long after his death, as a roman religion of all things.

 

No they didn't die from disease.
They were exterminated. You can read about it. This isn't a secret.
All this points out is how the faith can be used to justify the most heinous of activities, and regularly has been.
The Aztecs are irrelevant. The thread suggests that Christianity suppresses evil.
History suggests otherwise.

 

You don't consider the Aztecs killing 14 people a minute by tearing their hearts out evil? That was suppressed by the Spanish, to the joy of neighboring Indian tribes. The European/Indian clash was a war of civilizations, and bad things happen in war, as the Indians knew long before we got here. I'm glad our side won.

You act like it was all sweetness and light before the Europeans got here. In 1680 in my state during the Pueblo revolt, the Spanish were kicked out. Up until they returned in 1710, the Apache beat the stuffing out of the Pueblo Indians, who were begging the Spanish to return. I think you've been reading too much Ward Churchill. As for the US, the historian Guenter Lewy wrote, "As for the larger society, even if some elements of the white population, mainly in the West, at times advocated extermination, no official of the US government ever seriously proposed it. Genocide was never American policy, nor was it the result of policy."

 

Jesus taught a radical new theology... non aggressive liberation theology.. He didn't teach them to oppose the Romans. Read Sermon on the Mount in its historical context.

 

This is about Christianity and how it influences the moral climate of the country. What do the Aztecs have to do with it? It doesn't have anything to do what is evil or not in South America.

You need to read up about Andrew Jackson and how he squeezed the Natives into oblivion. You really don't know what you are talking about.

 

Revelation also was written to support the same ideas.
Glad you are around.

 

Thanks, Bruce.. Ghandi LOVED the Sermon on the Mount. He got it.

 

The Spanish practiced the encomienda system, wherein the Natives weren't "slaves", they were merely paying "tribute" to their Spanish overlords. Perfectly legal and ecclesiastically sanctioned.

It's de facto sex slavery when you "give" a 9 year old girl to a man who just brutally murdered her whole family.

And, perhaps, they could have lived just fine had ethnic cleansing not been performed. :V

 

And we have people in the US today paying over half their income in 'tribute' to their government overlords.

Where do you get 9 year old? You must be thinking of Muhammed.

Her former husband was killed, that happens in war.

 

So that would be why he supposedly said that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it?

As his saying are taken from memory, decades later, any claim to
what he really said, did, when and where he was born or died are
lacking in credibility.

 

1. No one in the US is paying half their income to the government.

2. When you evade taxes, no one cuts off your hands.

3. There is freedom of movement. You aren't legally bound to the land you're living on.

4. You can opt not to work, if taxes are so inimical to you. If you didn't provide a minimum amount of gold to the Spanish overlords, you were getting your hands cut off, regardless of who you were.

YHWH commanded the Israelites to murder any woman or girl who was not a virgin. Thus, virgins would be limited to young girls and maybe a few teenagers.

Plus, it was normal at the time for virgin girls, however young, to be raped by their conquerors. I expect the Israelites to be no better, though, I would expect their deity, if it was a perfectly good one, to, you know, not command them to engage in ethnic cleansing and taking the children as sex slaves.

Except her entire family was killed in an act of ethnic cleansing. That's not the action of a just deity: commit ethnic cleansing, take young girls as war booty.

 

Also, for the record, I find it hilarious that Paul will quickly denounce Spanish slavery of Native Americans and use papal actions to show how the Catholic Church was fighting the good fight, but when it is pointed out, that, by some legal technicality, it wasn't "really" slavery, but, instead, a system with a name that wasn't slavery (though, the end results are the same) and he quickly takes up the cross to defend the conquistadores as true Christians (via implicit comparisons to the US government and thus positing the conquistadores as legitimate, if overreaching and sometimes overbearing, seigneurs over the land), as opposed to, I dunno, even saying that the popes were ignorant of the true situation or something to make up some "no true Scotsman" defense of Christianity.

 

Wow, I don't know how to spell it out any clearer. Doesn't the stopping of the Aztecs murdering 80,000 of their neighbors count as improving the moral climate?

Non sequitor. What does the foreign policy of a US president during wartime have to do with Jesus Christ or His church? Jesus never told the Roman government to do anything.

 

You're wrong, in California the top state tax is 10.55% + the top federal rate of 39.6% = 50%+, not counting property and sales taxes.

You just get imprisoned in a slave-like state.

I get it, you don't agree with Spanish policy. That's OK, I similarly disagree with Obama policies. But what does either case have to do with the claims of Jesus Christ?

Your fallen and finite human reason isn't my standard for right and wrong. As I've said before here, it is amazing that those who believe in a woman's right to do with her 'own body' as she chooses deny God that same right to do with His creation as He wills. If an ancient (or modern) nation is grossly wicked and threatens Israel, there is a good chance God will punish them for it.

 

They controlled the Aztecs to rob them.
Jackson is very relevant to the genocide of the native Americans which we were discussing. And it wasn't his foreign policy we were talking about.

 

Only on income exceeding a certain level. And if you honestly believe that the multimillionaires in California actually pay at that rate, I have swamps in Arizona to sell you.

Only if you really (*)(*)(*)(*) up on tax evasion. Most of the time, its wage garnishing and fines, not imprisonment. Unlike what the Spanish Christians did to the Arawak Indians when they failed to pay gold. All with ecclesiastical consent.

Jesus isn't Christianity. Nice try, but the two aren't equivalent.

Killing something incapable of suffering is not equal to genocide and sex slavery.

 

Genocide was never the policy of the US govern\ment. Cite or retract.

 

Maybe if you were a woman you'd see the difference between having a right to one's own body and, a third party letting someone else have 'rights" to to you.

As for right and wrong, the human concepts of morality are said to come from this "god" who sets the standards.

One of those ideas would be that it it not just to punish a young girl
for the sins of her society.

 

Thanks for conceding my point.

Similar to things in the Old Testament atheists regulary complain about, there is no record of a disobedient child ever being killed, for example.

You think slavery had the consent of the Catholic Church?

So what is the 'Christ' in 'Christianity' all about then?

A fetus can feel pain, in some cases more intensely than an older newborn:

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/09/05/top-scientists-doctors-confirm-unborn-children-feel-pain/

Does that matter to you, or does your compassion only extend to enemies of the Bronze-Age theocracy of Israel? Would you treat a dog that way?

 

Now, which General was it said the only good injun is a dead one?

 

No record of where jesus pooped either, so he must not of. Right?

 

It isn't her own body, the unborn baby often has a different blood type and gender, and if it doesn't leave her body the mother will die.

PS My wife, mother and sister are all as pro-life as I am.

Sin has consequences for the innocent, unfortunately.

- - - Updated - - -

I take it you can't support the myth that genocide was official US policy either?

 

You're right. It was done with promises that were systematically broken. Jackson spearheaded the effort.

 

So there was no official US policy of genocide, or they burned all the memos, huh? On other words, a conspiracy theory with no evidence. I can see why the patience of the settlers was tested, don't read this if you have a weak stomach:

http://www.reclinercommentaries.com/2011/04/fate-worse-than-death.html

 

The history of Jackson's abuses are extremely well documented.
See if you can find a government anywhere, other than the Nazis, who committed their genocidal agenda to paper.