Subject:
|
Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:18:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3716 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ryan Farrington writes:
> > What I meant by that was that I inherently have a *very* strong tendency to
> > sin. My parents had to teach me to do right, because I did wrong by
> > default. That's the case with everyone.
>
> Don't you agree, however, that's a broad assumption based on an even more
> broad definition of sin? Keep in mind that sin is relative to a culture, not
> a hard and fast rule to all cultures and creatures. Eating pork is a sin for
> Hebrews and Moslems, but Christians are cool with it. Suicide is a sin in
> Christianity, but for other cultures it's the will and right of the
> individual. So, one group's sin is another group's virtue, and each group
> will swear the other is wrong. So, who is right? Well, they both are
> according to their society.
>
> Unfortunately, the concept of "might makes right" takes over and violence
> settles the issue. The group that survives ends up being right by default
> because they stomped the opposition. All religions (especially Christianity)
> are guilty of destroying other civilizations in the name of God, Christ or
> whomever. The facts speak for themselves:
>
> North America: total genocide by white Christians
> Central and South America, West Indies: hundreds of thousands murdered,
> native populations forced into slavery and Christianity, hundreds of
> cultures extinct
> Africa: hundreds of thousands stolen from Africa and enslaved and murdered
> by white Christians, and forced into Christianity; colonialism chokes off
> rest of Africa, hundreds of thousands murdered by white Christian colonists
Daniel:
In the spirit of avoiding sweeping generalizations that due a disservice to
one's arguments, I believe that your statements above need clarification. I'll
not excuse the atrocities committed in the name of religion, but a great deal
(and I'd wager most) of those atrocities were in fact committed in the name of
economic and political power. To say that all such atrocities were committed by
White Christians is to say that 1) Imperial Britain (for example) was a
monolithically Christian society/culture, and 2) White men are almost
universally Christian, and thus any crime committed by a White is in fact a
crime committed as a person of religious faith. While I'm ashamed to say that
many crimes have been committed by "Christians," I firmly deny your assertion
that it was a consensus of Christianity committing these abuses. I am taking a
class this semester called Historical Geography of the United States; it is by
far the most detailed historical study of this country that I have had the
fortune to encounter, and I can unequivocally state with confidence, based on
what I have learned, that economics was the prime (but not the sole) motivation
for exploitation of the Americas.
And one final point: Being born of an ethnic or nominally Christian culture/
heritage does not make one a Christian. By such rationale, many of us are
guilty of religious crimes.
james
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
| (...) Simple question: Was the Vatican a political and economic power during the conquest of the Americas? You know the answer. (...) You are inferring more than what I wrote. The fact remains that Christianity came down like an iron fist on the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Essential nature of mankind
|
| (...) Don't you agree, however, that's a broad assumption based on an even more broad definition of sin? Keep in mind that sin is relative to a culture, not a hard and fast rule to all cultures and creatures. Eating pork is a sin for Hebrews and (...) (23 years ago, 4-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
137 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
