Christianity at the Tip of a Blade - The Violence or Non-violence of Religion

For all your take about the SUPER EURO STATE, you can't spend a bit of time knowing your Muslim coworkers a bit more? There are millions of Muslims in Europe and they ain't going anywhere.
Yes, and? Just like the Catholics or other religious people, as long as they're not trying to put their religion into politics they can do whatever they want with their life I don't really care. Because...

Can't understand what?
...I can't understand why people, in the exemple, would pray. And, like, it's not because I haven't asked or anything (I was, after all, schooled in the private sector, so I've had a decent share of religious people to ask), I just can't wrap my mind around it. So, you know, I let people do their stuff, it makes them happy, and I don't look further because I know that if I do I'll reach a point where I'll be totally offensive.
 
I mean, I just looked on my phone and apparently some Jain monastic orders induct children into their ranks, while others have highly misogynistic dogma, like saying "women need to be reborn as men in order to achieve liberation".

I'd argue that's not quite on the same level as encouraging mass murder or expulsions, scummy but not monstrous. Thanks for looking, though.
 
Among others, which further supports my point that Christianity is an exclusivist religion. Not only do you have to be Christian, but you have to be the exact right kind of Christian, or it's off to the gallows with you. My general argument is that Christianity has mostly spread by capturing the levers of secular power, and s ruthlessly using those to stamp out competing faiths, including rival variants of Christianity. This started very early, with Arianism.

Now let's look at the picture outside of Europe. With a few exceptions like Ethiopia, what proportion of people who found themselves on the receiving end of Christican attention converted willingly? Were the peoples of the Americas, Africa and wherever in Asia that Christians ended up in charge given a free choice between conversion and being left alone to practice their old faith?

Noh. That's not exactly true. You have to believe that Jesus is the only way to get to Heaven (as a thinking adult), you have to believe in, as Wikipedia's page on Christian Fundamentalism says:
Of course, you might not be a heretic if you don't believe in some of the literal natures of the Biblical accounts, but you can't just believe the Bible is a book of fables.
 
...I can't understand why people, in the exemple, would pray. And, like, it's not because I haven't asked or anything (I was, after all, schooled in the private sector, so I've had a decent share of religious people to ask), I just can't wrap my mind around it. So, you know, I let people do their stuff, it makes them happy, and I don't look further because I know that if I do I'll reach a point where I'll be totally offensive.
I have a Muslim-origin roommate and another as a drinking buddy. Both are Muslim, by their own claim.

If "Muslim drinking buddy" didn't clue you in :V , as soon as you talk to these people, it's really easy to see that in many ways, they are just like us cultural or actual Christians -- they are raised in a certain way, often fail at being a "good" Muslim, and have many other things to worry about than just praying and/or why they do it.

Not talking to people because you consider something an insurmountable hurdle to do it doesn't help them, you know? Tolerance is created through engagement and gaining more knowledge, not ignoring people.
 
Last edited:
If "Muslim drinking buddy" didn't clue you in :V , as soon as you talk to these people, it's really easy to see that in many ways, they are just like us cultural or actual Christians -- they are raised in a certain way, often fail at being a "good" Muslim, and have many other things to worry about than just praying and/or why they do it.
Don't worry, I don't get Christians either :V

Not talking to people because you consider something an insurmountable hurdle to do it doesn't help them, you know? Tolerance is created through engagement and gaining more knowledge, not ignoring people.
I'm not ignoring people, I'm saying that I don't talk religion with IRL friends. Because, you know, it'll eventually reach the "yeah but prayer has literally no bearing on facts or reality except maybe making you feel good" point and that's, uh, not really something that's polite or considerate. So, not talking about it.
 
Last edited:
Were the peoples of the Americas, Africa and wherever in Asia that Christians ended up in charge given a free choice between conversion and being left alone to practice their old faith?
In my experience of growing up in a jungle in Sabah, yes, people did get a free choice between conversion and practicing their old faith. When my dad was ordained in 1982, many, many decades after the British had come to Sabah and left, much of Sabah's interior population were still animist or ancestor worshippers. there were negatives to becoming a christian; because of the Malaysian government 's policy of islamisation, you'd have people going about the the various villages and promising them all sorts of benefits if they became Muslim (among the least, getting jumped ahead of the line for affirmative action and government support. Theoretically the malaysian government promises affirmative action of the bumiputera races, the natives of sabah, sarawak, the west malaysian aborigines and malays; in practice the malays are more equal than everyone else, and back in the 80s the government was handing out Sabah identity cards to anybody who claimed they were muslim, in an effort to skew the demographics, regardless of whether they were refugees or illegal immigrants from the phillipines and indonesia).

Like my dad's an Anglican priest, he spent pretty much 2 decades in the jungle preaching to the indigenous people there. There was no pressure on people to become christian. Many people became christians facing opposition from their animist families. And then there was the time Special Branch held my dad overnight for interrogation to see if he was evangelising to muslims, and then their regular visits to our house to check up on us. :/

Otoh Malaysia might not count for the purpose of your question, I suppose, since after 1963 it basically stopped pretending to be a secular nation and the government has spent the time since then working on turning malaysia into a muslim nation. Thanks, Najib. Thanks, Najib's dad our 2nd PM. Thanks, PAS, our biggest opposition party, whose whole schtick vs UMNO is "more defender of Islam than thou." :|

As to the whole "there is only one way, why cant you get along interfaithly", imma quote my dad:

"Way I see it, I know the truth. I know the way to eternal life. How can i be so selfish as to keep that to myself? If a man is about to walk into a pit of snakes don't you shout and warn him?"


Edit:*shakes fist at thread* Look what you all are making me do, i'm giving perspective on christianity. Me, the partially lapsed christian who's pretty shit at this whole chrstlike living gig, who hasn't really felt a strong connection to god in a long time, who has possibly the largest porn stash of all SV (4.4 TB plus).

God defintely has a sense of humor here. :V
 
Last edited:
As for the thread title... well, living in Malaysia, I do feel that to be a christian is to do so at the tip of a blade.

It's just that the blade points at you when you become a christian. :/ Though as bad as we have it here, there are far far too many countries in the 10/40 window where other christians have it much worse.
 
Among others, which further supports my point that Christianity is an exclusivist religion. Not only do you have to be Christian, but you have to be the exact right kind of Christian, or it's off to the gallows with you.
LITTLE KNOWN FACT: IF YOU ARE NOT A CATHOLIC AND YOU STEP FOOT INTO VATICAN CITY THE PAPAL GUARDS IMMEDIATELY LOP YOUR HEAD OFF

THIS HAS BEEN CHRISTIANITY FACTS BROUGHT TO YOU BY JEMNITE

(can we have the funny rating back)

(wait we got moved to the history subforum, funny ratings are back!)
 
Ooh, a religion thread!

As a Catholic, I'm sure I can clear this up and convince everyone of Catholicism's peaceful, nonviolent stance, though it's admittedly sordid past may pose a problem. However, I'm sure there won't be any blatant reminders of such things in this...

*sees Anglicans and Cathars everywhere*

Oh dear. :V

LITTLE KNOWN FACT: IF YOU ARE NOT A CATHOLIC AND YOU STEP FOOT INTO VATICAN CITY THE PAPAL GUARDS IMMEDIATELY LOP YOUR HEAD OFF

THIS HAS BEEN CHRISTIANITY FACTS BROUGHT TO YOU BY JEMNITE

(can we have the funny rating back)

(wait we got moved to the history subforum, funny ratings are back!)

Am Catholic.

Can confirm.

Among others, which further supports my point that Christianity is an exclusivist religion. Not only do you have to be Christian, but you have to be the exact right kind of Christian, or it's off to the gallows with you. My general argument is that Christianity has mostly spread by capturing the levers of secular power, and s ruthlessly using those to stamp out competing faiths, including rival variants of Christianity. This started very early, with Arianism.

Now let's look at the picture outside of Europe. With a few exceptions like Ethiopia, what proportion of people who found themselves on the receiving end of Christican attention converted willingly? Were the peoples of the Americas, Africa and wherever in Asia that Christians ended up in charge given a free choice between conversion and being left alone to practice their old faith?

Eh. Throughout history, the vast majority of people who have converted to Christianity did so due to its appeal when compared to their prior belief system. Most Crusades weren't committed with the intent of converting anyone to anything, but rather with killing those people over there and taking their stuff for people who think they should have it instead. Which, while not nice, has been a staple of human history since we started walking on two legs.

My favorite example of this is the Roman Empire, and how it's treatment of foreigners and barbarians changed after it ceased to be pagan and became Christian.

That is, not at all. They continued to kill and plunder and conquer, and make deserts which they called peace. People will always be shits, and the justification for said shittiness matters remarkably little.
 
I should point out that when one makes their religion Protestantism rather than Christianity, or Catholicism, rather, just being a part of a Church in Christianity, is a deadly trap to fall into. Protestants and Catholics are equally as wrong when either submits to evil doing or deceptive theology.

Calvin was just as wrong as having people executed and tortured as he was when he came up with the stupid doctrines of Calvin, that is, that God just decides to throw people into the fire, and spare others, for seemingly no reason at all.

Look, exclusivity, isn't the problem. The problem is the truth and what Christians think the truth is from the Biblical scriptures.
 
Denmark converted to Christianity because the rest of Europe thought they were being idiots and threw a temper tantrum so they couldn't trade with them. :V
I should point out that when one makes their religion Protestantism rather than Christianity, or Catholicism, rather, just being a part of a Church in Christianity, is a deadly trap to fall into. Protestants and Catholics are equally as wrong when either submits to evil doing or deceptive theology.

Calvin was just as wrong as having people executed and tortured as he was when he came up with the stupid doctrines of Calvin, that is, that God just decides to throw people into the fire, and spare others, for seemingly no reason at all.

Look, exclusivity, isn't the problem. The problem is the truth and what Christians think the truth is from the Biblical scriptures.
Okay but who is right? :V
 
Throughout history, the vast majority of people who have converted to Christianity did so due to its appeal when compared to their prior belief system.
Said appeal very often being that they wouldn't be killed on the spot.

My favorite example of this is the Roman Empire, and how it's treatment of foreigners and barbarians changed after it ceased to be pagan and became Christian.

That is, not at all. They continued to kill and plunder and conquer, and make deserts which they called peace. People will always be shits, and the justification for said shittiness matters remarkably little.
On the one hand, we're told that receiving God's Grace makes one a new person, cleansed from sin and purified from evil. On the other hand, we're told that Christian or not, people will behave like douchebags no matter what.
 
On the one hand, we're told that receiving God's Grace makes one a new person, cleansed from sin and purified from evil. On the other hand, we're told that Christian or not, people will behave like douchebags no matter what.

The major concern of Christianity is getting your soul saved. If you still act like an evil jerk for too long after being born again, God can kill you before you sin everything away.
 
Denmark converted to Christianity because the rest of Europe thought they were being idiots and threw a temper tantrum so they couldn't trade with them. :V
It must also be emphasized that we we say "such-and-such country converted", it's shorthand for "the king converted, talked key members of the ruling class to follow suit, and the rest of the population was ordered to get on with the program no matter how they felt about it."
 
It must also be emphasized that we we say "such-and-such country converted", it's shorthand for "the king converted, talked key members of the ruling class to follow suit, and the rest of the population was ordered to get on with the program no matter how they felt about it."
Except that didn't happen at all? The actual conversion of Denmark was a slow process that took over 200 years. Hell, Harald Blåtand talks big shit about how he made the Danes Christian but the Church of Ribe (the first Church of Scandinavia) was closed for a substantial time because the people didn't want the bell to scare away local spirits when they were supposed to praying. The actual christianization of Denmark was a mostly peaceful process where Harald Blåtand was impressed by Ansgar holding a white hot rod in his hand, converting, writing it down and then proceeding to do fuck-all nothing because now he could trade with the rest of Europe. There was no great forcible conversion, at most you'll get people like Absalon a few 100 years later.
 
It must also be emphasized that we we say "such-and-such country converted", it's shorthand for "the king converted, talked key members of the ruling class to follow suit, and the rest of the population was ordered to get on with the program no matter how they felt about it."

Er...it was rather the other way around for the Roman Empire, in that Christianity crept up from the lower classes until it 'infected' the Emperor himself, and he forced diehard nobility to capitulate as well.

Said appeal very often being that they wouldn't be killed on the spot.

Not generally, actually. Certainly not when it started off. It gained traction for being a religion which gave a shit about the poor and promised you wouldn't have to be a serf even in the afterlife.

Most conversions were passive, and due to outward or inward social pressure, as well as 'common sense' for many people, especially in the ancient world where gods were more capricious (i.e "I am poor and hungry and follow X, Christians are poor and hungry and follow Christ, but at least Christ says I don't deserve to be poor and hungry").

By the time you get to Charlemagne massacring Saxons, the majority of Europe has already pretty passively converted. The Roman Empire spread Christianity simply through existing and being Christian, with all of its conquests being for firmly material reasons (conquer more land for the soldiers to pay them for the land they conquered in order to pay the soldiers for the land they conquered in order to pay...). Violence caused by Christianity in the Middle Ages was either against other Christians, or against the Muslims and pagans (who they would've likely fought anyway, i.e Iberia), not to convert anyone to anything. A vanishingly small amount of the billions of Christians extant in human history were converted by the sword.

In fact, this trend only really began in the colonial era, though it's not as widespread as is so often believed. Most people didn't need to be converted by the sword — the strength of an established organized religion was enough, and even 17th century imperialists saw the hipocrasy in forcing people to convert at gunpoint, hence the existence of evangelical priests and missions who would go into these native areas and try to convert them. The threat of conquest or death wasn't really a factor in many situations — indeed, many tribes or peoples would convert freely or naturally, only for the Spanish or whomever to decide they wanted their land anyhow, then kill them to take it.

This isn't to say that Christianity hasn't done some very not-nice things to nonbelievers over the course of its history, but very few times with the purpose of converting them. Rather, religious differences were used as an excuse for invasion by secular leaders during or after the fact, with wars not stopping even if the supposed heathens converted en masse mid-war.
 
Last edited:
The actual christianization of Denmark was a mostly peaceful process where Harald Blåtand was impressed by Ansgar holding a white hot rod in his hand,
Yeah, I'm sure it happened exactly like that.

Anyway, how much freedom to embrace other faiths was there in European countries once they had officially become Christian, until the 18th/19th centuries? How much freedom to not follow Christian morality in one's personal life? How easy is it to get an abortion in the Southern US even to this day? How about getting a divorce in the Philippines? Opening a mosque in Hungary?
 
It means that with possibly two or three exceptions, the spread of Christianity has been mostly conducted at swordpoint, and wherever Christians have found themselves in charge, it has taken them centuries to stop oppressing other faiths, or even other variants of Christianity.

Do I really need to provide citations for this? If I have to mention every last instance we'll still be at it next week.
Ok that is complete bullshit and you know it.

Christianity spreading to Rome and the larger Mediterranean Civilizational complex was peaceful; same with Russia' with Iraq, with the Nestorian Churches of Central Asia and China; with Ethiopia; with Sudan; with the Igbo and Yoruba of Nigeria, with the Kongo, within Southern India (Hello St Thomas Christians); within Ghana- I could go on and on.

If anything the evidence proves the few times Christianity doesn't spread peacefully is when its used as another state arm coopted by an Imperialist state or a Colonial government.
 
Last edited:
Ok that is complete bullshit and you know it.
No, it's history.

I'm frankly baffled, and not in a good way, about the amount of kneejerk Christian apologism that's going on here. I hear complaints about dogpiling in gun control threads, apparently it's also a thing in religious ones.
 
No, it's history.

I'm frankly baffled, and not in a good way, about the amount of kneejerk Christian apologism that's going on here. I hear complaints about dogpiling in gun control threads, apparently it's also a thing in religious ones.
"Its history" isn't a response. Just because the arguments given here don't fit your whiggish narratives about how Gibbon was right et all doesn't make them wrong.

If you're upset at religious people defending themselves with constructed arguments and references, then you might wanna go back to AH.com or some other fora where the site culture is much more biased in favor of the doctrine you prefer.
 
Information: Official Staff Communication
"Its history" isn't a response. Just because the arguments given here don't fit your whiggish narratives about how Gibbon was right et all doesn't make them wrong.

If you're upset at religious people defending themselves with constructed arguments and references, then you might wanna go back to AH.com or some other fora where the site culture is much more biased in favor of the doctrine you prefer.



official staff communication Please do not try and rhetorically push other people out of the conversation like this. If you have an issue with their arguments then take it up with their arguments, don't try and chase them off the site.
 
Yeah, I'm sure it happened exactly like that.
Cute, but I consider my role here to be citing what we know of history, not to invent new narratives. Perhaps Ansgar didn't hold a white hot rod in his hand, he likely didn't, but it's what Saxo Grammaticus (a biased writer since he was a Christian himself and paid by Absalon, a powerful secular and religious figure) has to say about it, and since that's the only source, it's what I have. You are free to write up historical fanfiction to suit your narrative towards The Greater Areligious New World Order, but I prefer to use what I have.

Anyway, how much freedom to embrace other faiths was there in European countries once they had officially become Christian, until the 18th/19th centuries? How much freedom to not follow Christian morality in one's personal life? How easy is it to get an abortion in the Southern US even to this day? How about getting a divorce in the Philippines? Opening a mosque in Hungary?
Not a lot to be honest. It was pretty terrible, but how much freedom did you have to choose another state? What makes Christianity so exclusively bad Hendryk? Like, I get France has this thing where aggressive resistance to religion is more common and I feel that makes sense given the country's history so it's hardly something I'll call into question, but I really don't see this Great War between the Atheist-Agnostic Coalition against the Forces of Unreason that you seem to be spouting. When I cite an example of a peaceful conversion you try to cutely dismiss it with sarcasm and then steal the goalposts run as fast as you can. Stop that. Engage with me. The goalposts stay here, Hendryk, I need them.

Why did it not happen like that? Why was the christianization of Denmark not peaceful?
 
Back
Top