Something I don't understand...

Many times, in discussions about Christian/Muslim relations, it is brought up that Christians have killed just as many people in the name of God as Muslims. But many Christians, especially on this site, refuse to acknowledge that fact. They claim that the last time Christians murdered people was in the Cruisades and since that was so loing ago, it no longer matters. That is a stupid claim, in my mind, for two reasons...

1; Time does not erase evil deeds.

2; The Nazis, who for the most part were Christian, killed in the name of god (The catholic church has taught for years that jews should be hated for killing Christ), and so did the US soldiers and settlers during the move west. (They considered it devine right for the white man to own the land and killed anyone who claimed differently)

People who try to claim that Christians have not murdered just as much in the name of god as Muslims have, are either 1 of 2 things.....A liar, or a fool.

 

Well said. Except for one thing...

They can be both

 

Sound right but could also be wrong. I don't think about in the moment because everyone is only responsible for his own deeds and not the deeds of others.

No

The German expression is "Gottesmörderer" (=murderer of god) in this context - That's a paradox because no one is able to murder god. On the other side you could also ask yourselve why Bernhard of Clairvaux was an enemy of the Jews - if you like to learn something about ways people were thinking in the times of the crucades. The way I asked "Why was Bernhard of Clairvaux an enemy of Jews" is in this context here a typical agitation of our ages what manipulates people to think that he was an enemy of Jews while he was indeed a friend of Jews. Jews for example called sometimes their own children "Bernhard" because of Bernhard of Clairvaux. I'm using this example to show to you: A placative "truth" is seldom really true. History is not a "one message on a button" game.

I would not say the catholic church was a main propagandist of slogans like "westward we roll" - although she was indeed "the west" during the longest time of her history (450-2006 A.D.).

Show me more than 40 countries in the world where Latin is the main language of the people and I'll show you more than 40 countries in the world speaking the arab language.

What do you think about if Christians had learned once the wrong things (to do war in the name if god = crucades) from the concept of the djihad in the Islam? We are calling both "holy wars" - what seems to be also nothing else than a paradox expression. Perhaps the USA is today doing the same mistake to learn wrong concepts and are developing wrong answers because of the wrong concepts of their enemies?

http://youtu.be/alCM3tS3QFI

 

The is both truth and inaccuracies in what you write.

#1 - The Nazi ideology is not Christianity. There were Christians, and certainly there were attempts to harness religion in Nazism, but ultimately, the stuggle, from Nazism, was one of social darwinism. Jews, who Hitler believed had betrayed the German people in WWI, were simply the bottom of the rung, the slavs just a step above.

As an interesting rejoiner, Stalin allowed the return of religion as the Nazis were pressing at the gates of Moscow. There are those who faith allowed them, on both sides of the Nazi onslaught, as a boon to put down that evil.

#2 - in th west, religious violence has largely been relegated to the fringes since the end of the 30 years war. The aftermath of that brutal war is a legacy of individual rather than political choice in faith. The instruments of policy are now wrapped into the protection of choice rather than imposition of a choice from on high.

There is still Christian violence, like the Church of Jesus Christ Christian (Neo-Nazi Church) and a few ringe groups like the Hutari and the Westboro Baptists church, but we correctly identify them as fringe elements.

IMO opinion, we take this for granted. But if you look to the streets around the world, people are desparate - they search. And this environment ... who knows.

#3 - Islam is no different in this aspect than we are. Unfortunately, Islam has a legacy of state sponosred terror that has erupted from Intra-State regional rivalry in the region (Americans would be aamazed and aghast as teh steps ME states take to intefere with one another) that created a trans-national smuggling network flush with arms, and, whether we like it or not, the most extreme versions of Islam have, for better or worse, created entire madrassa systems in places that are devoid of al else. And when you have a mass of young men and a ready and steady flow of weapons and ammunition ... complacency from various states who think there actors ar ethe ones who will best push their influence .... then what you have is a scanrio where the charismatic and unscrupulous will take advanatge.

Most Muslims are as horrified by the actions of these extremists as we are of the Slaughter of Jerusalem by the Crusaders. The Arab spring in just one aspect of Islam as it battles for it soul - so to speak.

The good ones deserve our support.

 

I don't think it's relevant whose kill count is highest. My personal favourite is the European colonization of roughly 4/5 of the world which had much Christian rhetoric behind it, but I would never put any blame for that on today's Christianity or Christians, just as I would never blame Muslims for an expansion 1400 years ago.

I occasionally use statements like kill counts in my arguments, but it is not to say that this or that religion is worse for having killed more, I say it as an argument that anyone, of any religion can be manipulated by sufficient religious (or other ideological) rhetoric. As such, I don't see why Christianity gets defended by arguments like economical expansion, and the Muslim expansion does not, despite being a much more economically feasible campaign.

 

Do you feel all warm and fuzzy now?

 

Killing comes with a requirement of justification, is all. Doesn't matter if it's derived from religious, political, social, economical or other sentiments.

 

They Bill O'Reilly it.

A Muslim kills someone, they're just being a Muslim.

A Christian kills someone and they're really a communist, atheist, antiAmerican in disguise!

 

So now share the justification of 911

or have you even used that argument for your own seeking to understand that event?

 

that was the best answer for this thread

 

Cruisades? You mean "crusades?" How long ago was that? Give it up would you?

 

and even used hindu "peace" symbolism...???

an equilateral cross with its arms bent at right angles, in either right-facing (&#21328 form or its mirrored left-facing (&#21325 form. Earliest archaeological evidence of swastika-shaped ornaments dates back to the Indus Valley Civilization of Ancient India as well as Classical Antiquity. Swastikas have also been used in other various ancient civilizations around the world. It remains widely used in Indian religions, specifically in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, primarily as a sacred symbol of good luck


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika


Besides the use as a religious symbol in Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism, which can be traced to pre-modern traditions, the swastika is also used by a number of new religious movements established in the modern period.

The Theosophical Society uses a swastika as part of its seal, along with an Aum, a hexagram, a star of David, an Ankh and an Ouroboros. Unlike the much more recent Raëlian movement (see below), the Theosophical Society symbol has been free from controversy, and the seal is still used. The current seal also includes the text "There is no religion higher than truth."

 

For the Nazis, is was a Rune symbol for the sun, nothing to do with peace or Hinduism.

http://www.runes-for-health-wealth-love-now.com/Rune-Swastika.html

 

Oh, a few buttons sudden means that Hitler was a car carrying Pope does it?

Maybe you should read this:



Maybe you can read some actual historical analysis, some people who have actually bothered to take a look at the reality of Hitler:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian

http://davnet.org/kevin/essays/hitler.html

"At this point (after years of debate) I believe that the question (Was Hitler Christian/Atheist), as it is posed in the title of this page is meaningless. It is more a reflection of an individual's bias than an assertion of historical fact."

In fact, in telling poignancy, almist all the sites that claim Hitler was a Christian or that the Nazi movement was Christian are ... you guessed it, atheist web sites.

And take a look at this:



American Soldiers praying during WWII? Well, clearly the entire thing was a religious Crusade then? Our messianic vision clearly what drove us, rather then geo-politics or anything else ... obviously

Or, quite possibly, the religious aspects of American Soldiers in WWII are simply down played, because the US effort is widely seen as good. The fact that German Soldiers were also Christian? I wonder why they alone come to define Christianity? However small it was in Hitler's wrath; however manipulative he was with it before and during the war.

The truth is that Hitler and Nazis are just a tool of bashing and inducement of character assination. Such antics have no basis in anything other sanctimony, making short and ignorant shrift of religion (or atheism when teh reverse charge is levelled), Nazism, and the ideological manipulation of Nazism as it seized control of an entire Nation.

Simply put, no one should tolerate this kind of historical games and teh spread of propgandistic exaggerations whose sole intent is merely to bash people.

And no stroll, correcting egregious historical claims is not anti-atheism bigotry, its pro-fact enlightenment.

 

Hitler a "car carrying pope"? ROFL

Amazing what kind of stuff an overactive, agitated mind can read into a few pics displaying the words "God with Us".

No, Neutral the title of this page does not mention Hitler, nor does the OP, nor have I mentioned him.
Please take the time to read before spouting off...


PLEASE DO!

 

No but your patches do, and clearly your intent is spelled out. Until of course you are called on it.

<<< Mod Edit: Off topic/baiting >>>

 

So basically, if the 'god' folk can be compared to 'hitler' with everything from inquisitions to charles manson as evidence, not to mention the nazi patches,

then it must not be all that bad to be 'atheist'?

Are we all neutrally clear on this?

Or does it require the 'hell' of the liars claiming to be neutral to get a clear picture?

 

1) First of all, justify the Crusades as an "evil deed". The Crusades were a reaction to unchecked Muslim (Saracen) expansionism in Jerusalem originally (in 1065, as the Holy City was taken by Turks and over 3,000 Christians were slaughtered) and then also Spain and islands within the Mediterranean Sea as well as all the Byzantine empire.
Why is the reaction to rampant war and aggression considered evil, and not the warlike aggression itself? It's hypocritical, to say the least.


2) The claim is that Christians have killed just as many people in the name of God as the Muslims. This is not proven. It is only claimed.

3) The Nazis indeed slaughtered Jews but certainly not "in the name of God".
Hitler was antithetical to Jews on racial grounds, on the grounds that they caused Germany to fail in WWI, on the grounds that they were secretly in
cahoots with the Communists in an effort to control the world and it's markets, on the grounds they were responsible for pornography and prostitution in Germany, for modern art and music (which he detested) and many other grounds. But as an explicitly Christian duty? No.

And the western expansion on this continent may have used divine blessing as a rationale to gobble up land, but the reason for the expansion WAS the land...not any religious rationale that attempted to justify it. You have things exactly backwards, to fit your argument.

 

The Nazis were secretly responsible for modern art and music, am I reading this correctly???

That's a new one!

 

No! You are not.

 

I don't know what they used as a justification. Probably a kind of hatred which again would be sought justified by one or more of the sentiments I listed.

 

"God with us" is a short form of "god with us in victory and defeat" and means to be generous in case of victory and not to be despaired in case of defeat. The only shame of this expression is it, that this is not any longer written on the belt buckle of the uniform of every german soldier. By the way: What shows the last picture?

http://youtu.be/EOmgMkvZCP8

 

Is "God with us" something atheists put on their sleeves?

Most Nazis were Christian, as the OP rightly asserts.
One only needs to look at German religion demographics of the time to verify this.

The Bundesrepublic has practiced seperation of Church and state (to a large extent), hence there are no such badges forced upon soldiers who may or may not believe in the Christian god.

 

Is there anyone who can deny that religious or other ideological rhetoric can persuade and mislead? If not, it should be no surprise that any ideology/otherwise wishing to gain power uses such rhetoric. It has nothing to do with which ones use which ones.

If atheists are off the hook, then theists are off the hook. If theists are off the hook, then atheists are off the hook. I'd say everyone get to make their own imprint on history and judgement based on other people in other places with other ideas in other ideological backgrounds and surroundings should be disregarded.