Religion...

[ComandanteCero]

Religious people have done bad things in the name of religion?  Yes.  No one's arguing that.

Religious belief in itself is what causes people to do bad things? No.  i completely disagree.

Religious beliefs interact with a number of factors, from culture, to education, to economics, to politics?  Absolutely.

Can we explain history by looking at religious practices and beliefs? To some extent.

Can we explain history by looking solely at religious practices and beliefs?  Uh.... that's absurd.

[ignatius]

But blaming the church for exploration and subsequent colonization is a bit of a stretch.  Well it's not a stretch, it's flat out wrong.        

You're positioning it differently.  The Church _benefited_ from acts of inhumanity during those conquests.  In S/Central America, the Church should have not recognized those as Catholic colonizations.  Instead of pulling out, they sent priests and missionaries either after or during those conquests. Some of those priests are attributed for other destructive things, like eliminating the Mayan language. Aggressive members did the conquests for other reasons, the Church conveniently denies direct involvement and then sends priests/missionaries to grow their empire (or they might position it 'to save souls').  The bottom line is Central/S America is predominantly Catholic due to force.  This happened in many other situations but this is a glaring obvious one.

What started this conversation is the notion that both Christian and Muslim cultures have a history of benefiting from terrorist acts.   They are the two largest religions in the world partly due to force.  Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism didn't grow to that degree because they are generally passive (Buddhism) or you have to be born into them. Christian/Muslim cultures are generally more aggressive.  The perceived duty to proselytize and assumed authority of the god in their minds, ultimately authorized them to benefit from these actions.  The really sad thing is that their god is all in their heads in the first place.

[ignatius]

Can we explain history by looking solely at religious practices and beliefs?  Uh.... that's absurd.

Sure.  Wasn't implying that.  Was stating that Christians and Muslims have a similar history of growth partly through force compared to other religions.  And as a result they are two largest in the world. 

[aknowledgeableperson]

You're positioning it differently.  The Church _benefited_ from acts of inhumanity during those conquests.  In S/Central America, the Church should have not recognized those as Catholic colonizations.

Knowing now what we know it is easy to apply today's standards to what has happened in the past and pass judgment.  Their aggression was more a product of the times as opposed to current practices.  Afterall with regards to Christianity that aggression was not in the teachings of Jesus but solely was of human practices.  And the early growth of Christianity reflected those teachings.
Much like we cannot return this land to the Natives to correct past practices there isn't anything we can do to change the past of what happened with regards to the spread of religions. 

[ignatius]

^Yeah, fully acknowledged as I don't view mainstream Christians today as the same as fundie Muslims.  It doesn't change the position that Christianity is the worlds largest religion partly due to force and indirect benefit from terrorism, similar to growth of Islam.  So it's fair to compare in that respect.

Christian missionaries today are still going after remaining tribal cultures.  While not out of force, it's through mild forms of coercion, which is still unjust.  Many Christians today still perceive a duty to proselytize at the expense of other cultures.

[LenexatoKCMO]

And the early growth of Christianity reflected those teachings.

So Jesus would have been A-OK with the post-conversion Roman government persecuting the hell out of all non-Christians?  Early Christians went from persecuted to persecutors in litterally the span of a few years.  

[aknowledgeableperson]

Good example of why there should be no state religion.  Again, not practicing the teachings of Jesus but was human practices.

[ComandanteCero]

Sure.  Wasn't implying that.  Was stating that Christians and Muslims have a similar history of growth partly through force compared to other religions.  And as a result they are two largest in the world.  

Throughout history, religions, be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Shinto, etc. etc. have had a complex interaction with the cultures and political systems in which they have existed.  If Buddhism, instead of Christianity, had gained favor in Western Europe, i think you would see Buddhists all over the world.  I don't think the wars or the conflicts would have been any less brutal, or cultural displacement any less severe.

I think there is an arbitrary element as to which religions have come to dominate.  But that's history - a couple of inventions here, a different political innovation there, and China could have easily been the dominant global political power over the past few centuries and we'd be having this discussion in Mandarin.

[ignatius]

Good example of why there should be no state religion.  Again, not practicing the teachings of Jesus but was human practices.

Now we're back to what started it in the first place.  You mean teachings of the followers of Jesus as he didn't leave any writings himself and the followers words were mostly written second hand a generation+ later.  And the Jews invented the messiah idea yet reject him along with others... etc etc.

[ignatius]

and China could have easily been the dominant global political power over the past few centuries and we'd be having this discussion in Mandarin.

Fair enough.  If any faction unjustly dominated most of the planet, we'd be discussing it.   What Christian/Islam doctrine have in common moreso than other religions is encouragement for aggressive proselytizing and the authority to assimilate other cultures (NT says to go and make disciples of all nations).  Maybe its nature for humans to dominate but curious these two end up the two largest when their doctrine specifically support it.

Christian missionaries and some Muslims are still going after converting tribal cultures while others are not.

But apparently I'm making a shallow observation here.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Good example of why there should be no state religion.  Again, not practicing the teachings of Jesus but was human practices.

But you said that the early growth of the church was in accordance with his teachings.  In actuallity the early growth of the church came from Roman emperors forcing it on all of europe through heavy persecution of non-believers. 

[IraGlacialis]

Christian missionaries today are still going after remaining tribal cultures.  While not out of force, it's through mild forms of coercion, which is still unjust.  Many Christians today still perceive a duty to proselytize at the expense of other cultures.

Arguably, many would see it as unjust to leave the tribe unconverted as they may be punished in the afterlife for eternity.
To a point (once the killing or full-on hate speech starts, the justification ends), it helps to look at it not from a humanistic or secular perspective, but from that of the converters. It definitely doesn't mean you have to agree with the idea (in many cases, I don't agree with it either; only exception is if they are doing humanitarian work first, and simply leaving the option of conversion open with allowances for the native culture (like what some Jesuits do)); you just need to see where they are coming from.

In any case, while the cause of Christianity and Islam being widespread was largely due to conquest.

Fair enough.  If any faction unjustly dominated most of the planet, we'd be discussing it.   What Christian/Islam doctrine have in common moreso than other religions is encouragement for aggressive proselytizing and the authority to assimilate other cultures (NT says to go and make disciples of all nations).  Maybe its nature for humans to dominate but curious these two end up the two largest when their doctrine specifically support it.

Again, it is about the idea of saving the unsaved.
Buddhism is the only other religion that supports proselytizing to a high degree due to the principle of spiritual salvation; Judaism is lineage/culture-based, Zoroastrianism is also culture-based, and Hinduism has a can't-fight-fate mentality. Note how much it succeeded in spreading, even if not at the same rate as Christianity or Islam; plus, think of how fast Christianity would have spread if there was no conquests going on and it was just missionary-based.

[beautyfromashes]

What are the Christian 'rules' everyone is talking about?  The only 'rules' I see are some very basic ones that you'd be hard to find anyone disagree with.  ie. don't kill each other, don't cheat on your spouse, etc. 

[Highlander]

You're positioning it differently.  The Church _benefited_ from acts of inhumanity during those conquests.   The bottom line is Central/S America is predominantly Catholic due to force.  This happened in many other situations but this is a glaring obvious one.

What started this conversation is the notion that both Christian and Muslim cultures have a history of benefiting from terrorist acts.   They are the two largest religions in the world partly due to force.  Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism didn't grow to that degree because they are generally passive (Buddhism) or you have to be born into them. Christian/Muslim cultures are generally more aggressive.  The perceived duty to proselytize and assumed authority of the god in their minds, ultimately authorized them to benefit from these actions.  The really sad thing is that their god is all in their heads in the first place.

First of all, Cambodia is 96% Buddhist and underwent one of the more henious genocides in modern history during the reign of the Khmer Rouge so the argument that a Buddhist population is not a violent population is not really valid.

Here is the point - nations and cultures achieve varying degrees of preeminence for whatever reasons at certain times in human history. The Romans achieved this and spread their culture around the Mediterranean, the Greeks under Alexander pushed into the Middle East and beyond, the Monguls were there too, the Japanese dominated the far east for much of their history, Arabs dominated much of the former Roman Empire while Europe was mired in the dark ages (see CC's post).  Europeans established that preeminence at an age where technology had advanced enough to enable navigation and passage of the Atlantic Ocean at a fairly significant scale.  It had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with what culture was poised to advance themselves when the opportunity presented itself.  At the same time, since Asian cultures were pushing out and warring each other in already significantly densely populated areas, it was extremely difficult for them to establish themselves in already populated areas.  Not so in the new world and North Africa and Central Asia, where population densities were not so great.  Relatively few Europeans (and Arabs in North Africa) could establish bases without serious threat from a local population spread to thin and themselves to occupied in their own little wars.  What happened in the Americas and N Africa happened because the opportunity presented itself at the right time to people who were well equipped and organized to take advantage of it.  Had Buddhist or Hindus or various pagan tribes been presented with the same opportunites, they would have taken advantage of it.  History shows that to be true time and time again.  It was not driven by any religious purpose at all.

Did sects of Christianity and Islam benefit, well yea, the religions of the opportunistic culture were spread....not always by coercion as you suggest, it just made more sense to the conquered to adopt the religion of the conquerer.  There was nothing inherent in these religions that caused people to act as they did, they were just at the right place at the right time

And again, making judgements about morality 600 years ago is futile.  Put our advanced brains in that environment and we would have acted in exactly the same way.  While there were some that were  particularly brutal, or some that showed uncommon mercy, most just wanted to survive and did things that we may see as immoral and inhumane today without even a second thought.  That was life then and we are certainly capable of a return to those days.

[ignatius]

Arguably, many would see it as unjust to leave the tribe unconverted as they may be punished in the afterlife for eternity.

And that supports the point that missionaries feel they have the right to impose on other cultures based on what they believe.  The doctrine supports 'making disciples of all nations' and that they have done exceedingly well as well as other Christians/Muslims doing it via force (direct or indirect) that is justified by their god.

Is interesting what Vatican II says about proselytizing.. "Proselytism is a corruption of the Christian witness by appealing to hidden forms of coercion or by a style of propaganda unworthy of the Gospel."

Yet it conflicts with the very doctrine they live by.  The gospels themselves promote it.

[ignatius]

First of all, Cambodia is 96% Buddhist and underwent one of the more henious genocides in modern history during the reign of the Khmer Rouge so the argument that a Buddhist population is not a violent population is not really valid.

Yeah, that is one of the exceptions to Buddhist passiveness I was definitely thinking about, but it was an (horrific) internal issue within themselves.   Cambodia was Buddhist for a very long time through merchant adoption, not Buddhist domination if I understand.   The original point was a comparison of Christian and Muslim behavior over all of their respective histories, not single instances of a culture.  Christian/Islam doctrine supports aggressive proselytizing and it's curious they end up the two largest religions essentially through domination even if it's not the original cause.  

 It was not driven by any religious purpose at all.

I do understand your point of opportunistic timing and it's obviously not always specifically religiously driven.  But to suggest growth of Islam/Christianity had no relationship to force is pretty naive, especially when it was much more intense than other religions and in many more instances throughout their history.  And their doctrine supports influencing other nations.  I'm stating that a little too mildly.

I do see your point that the early Romans had their day, the early Greeks had their day, etc. The relgions followed. Point taken.  I see now why you think I'm singling out Christians/Muslims.  Christians are simply now having their day (partly attributed to force just as any other domineering culture of the past).  Certain Muslims groups are showing direct force today.   Got that, it's human history.  Christian/Islam doctrine however support aggressive proselytizing and certainly do take advantage of it when the opportunity is there despite (for Christians) a message that all people are equal.  The former seems to often outweigh the latter.

[aknowledgeableperson]

But you said that the early growth of the church was in accordance with his teachings.  In actuallity the early growth of the church came from Roman emperors forcing it on all of europe through heavy persecution of non-believers. 

The early growth being before Constantine converted which was approximately 300 years after Jesus.    By that time it was already established and had spread beyond the Roman Empire borders into Persia but had no political power.  So I would say its early growth was in accordance to his teachings.

[Highlander]

I do understand your point of opportunistic timing and it's obviously not always specifically religiously driven.  But to suggest growth of Islam/Christianity had no relationship to force is pretty naive, especially when it was much more intense than other religions and in many more instances throughout their history.  And their doctrine supports influencing other nations.  I'm stating that a little too mildly.

I do see your point that the early Romans had their day, the early Greeks had their day, etc. The relgions followed. Point taken.  I see now why you think I'm singling out Christians/Muslims.  Christians are simply now having their day (partly attributed to force just as any other domineering culture of the past).  Certain Muslims groups are showing direct force today.   Got that, it's human history.  Christian/Islam doctrine however support aggressive proselytizing and certainly do take advantage of it when the opportunity is there despite (for Christians) a message that all people are equal.  The former seems to often outweigh the latter.

No doubt that Christianity became entangled in the exploration and colonization of the new world.  I do not believe christian doctrine necassarily drove nations in that direction though.  But now that we have an understanding, I would say that there was a lot similarities in the way Christianity and Islam spread initially (early believers spread the word followed by a more institutional adoption of the religion).  I'd also venture to say that early Christianity (in the days of Paul, Peter and persecution) was considerably more peaceful than early Islam where the prophet Mohammed led progorms against jewish populations in Mecca and Mediana (populations that had initially sheltered him from his enemies).

That said, I see absolutely no comparison between the spread of Christianity and the motivation of the Taliban and Al Queda today.  In idealogy and in practice, these groups much more similar to the Nazi's, and they share a lot of the same bullet points in their doctrine although the Nazi's were nationalists not religious idealogues.  All that keeps the Taliban-Al Queda alliance from achieving Nazi proportions  is the lack of resources; but I suspect the death toll, murder for the sake of murder, is well into the hundreds of thousands by now. And this comparison is strictly for the Taliban/Al Queda; Palestinian terrorism and all the complicatins that adds stems from a primarily nationalistic struggle and has only been recently hijacked by religious elements.  

[ignatius]

Our reactions have been from different positions and we don't need to stubbornly defend them at this point.  You are viewing from history of human nature that all domination works in generally the same way, with religion as an afterthought.  I'm looking at the world's largest religions of today and how they got there.  I view progression of Christian culture growth more similar to Islam than any other religion in history.. not as in the exact same process (Islam is very direct though Christian cultures once were), but with essentially the same net result due to unjust force.  Point taken that your summary is _a_ way it occurs.  I propose that Christian/Muslim proselytize is another unique factor above and beyond typical domination due to resources.

I've been studying tribal cultures for over 20 years now and see both Muslims/Christians unjustly dominating these cultures to this day.  No other religions I'm aware of are doing this today with such relentless righteousness.  Their doctrine of spreading the word, making disciples of other nations, etc has had significant unjust impact.  Both religions (the doctrine, not all individuals) claim being in the right and expand at the expense of other cultures.

What's really interesting to me is that most of the progress in the last few hundred years of the mainstream Christians/Muslims are from those living half secular lives.  To me the half secular attitude is improving those who still cling onto the faith.  The fundamentalists are still same on same old self-righteous ones.  Just my opinion.

[IraGlacialis]

I'd also venture to say that early Christianity (in the days of Paul, Peter and persecution) was considerably more peaceful than early Islam where the prophet Mohammed led progorms against jewish populations in Mecca and Mediana (populations that had initially sheltered him from his enemies).

The only Jewish "pogrom" I'm aware of dealt with the Banu Qurayza was at Medina, and that was because right after sheltering the Muslims, they decided that it would have been prudent to side with besieging Quraysh tribe and their allies. As horrible as it was by modern standards, it was an extremely pragmatic move.
Muhammad was a man of his time and setting. It's one of the best cases of "fair for its day, but something that shouldn't be emulated today".

I've been studying tribal cultures for over 20 years now and see both Muslims/Christians unjustly dominating these cultures to this day.  No other religions I'm aware of are doing this today with such relentless righteousness.  Their doctrine of spreading the word, making disciples of other nations, etc has had significant unjust impact.  Both religions (the doctrine, not all individuals) claim being in the right and expand at the expense of other cultures.

Arguably, I'd bet that if many of those tribes gained sufficient power, they would have no issue expanding at the expense of other cultures.
And it could be said that there have been plenty of instances where religion has spread without the culture being destroyed in the process. Look at Iroquois culture or Voodoo.

What's really interesting to me is that most of the progress in the last few hundred years of the mainstream Christians/Muslims are from those living half secular lives.  To me the half secular attitude is improving those who still cling onto the faith.  The fundamentalists are still same on same old self-righteous ones.  Just my opinion.

Can't argue with that.

Yeah, that is one of the exceptions to Buddhist passiveness I was definitely thinking about, but it was an (horrific) internal issue within themselves.   Cambodia was Buddhist for a very long time through merchant adoption, not Buddhist domination if I understand.   The original point was a comparison of Christian and Muslim behavior over all of their respective histories, not single instances of a culture.  Christian/Islam doctrine supports aggressive proselytizing and it's curious they end up the two largest religions essentially through domination even if it's not the original cause.

Buddhism, while in its core peaceful (the same could be said about Christianity), is not passive; though, yes, it did put up less of a fight when Islam came through or Hinduism was in the process of removing it from India (Buddhism was seen as a destabilizing force by many Hindus). While it's true that Buddhism has been spread by merchants, it has also been reliant on missionaries and proselytization. That was the only way it could have effectively spread as it did into East and Southeast Asia. In fact, it could be said that the first missions were Buddhist. In Thailand, you can also find Buddhist missionaries near the hill tribes with the goal of salvation through enlightenment.
Again, if any one of the Buddhist nations have had the means to not only resist the tide of Islam but to expand into the West or the New World, Buddhism would be a lot more prominent than it is. The goal of expansion may always not be conversion (and it usually isn't; strategic points and resources trump everything), but missionaries will always follow the armies.