The Kingdom Come
Where Christ is King
NavigationSimilar entriesUser login
Loading...
Archive by terms |
Were Most Human Deaths Caused By Religion?
Sometimes when in discussion with atheists or people resisting Christianity, or religion in general you will hear the claim that religion has been the cause of the most human suffering and death in the world. Typically, events like the Crusades, the so-called "witch hunts" and the Inquisition will be trotted out as proof. And many Christians will shrink back or will say something like, "Even so, Christianity as it was espoused by Christ is non-violent." Although it is true that Christianity as espoused by Christ was to be spread not by the sword (as Islam is designed), but by the Word, by mere preaching. But why should we allow the atheist to even use the Crusades and such as evidence in their claim that most human suffering and death has been caused by religion. It plainly is not true. What I want to do is offer a detailed listing of human death from the 18th century through the 20th century and see if the claim is true. Yes, we'll also look at the Crusades, the witch hunts and the Inquisition. DEATH TOLLS18th Century Slave Trade
Seven Years War (1755-63)
French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (1792-1802)
And these wars were supposed to be about bringing "freedom" to civilized men. War of the Spanish Succession (1701-13)
Yet another non-religious war As we leave the 1700s don't forget all of the many, many other events -- all non-religious where hairless apes killed other hairless apes. On to the 19th century... 19th Century Slave Trade
Venezuela, power struggles (1830-1903)
Colonial El Niño Famines (1876-1900)
American Civil War (1861-65)
Paraguay, War of the Triple Alliance (1864-70)
Maybe it gets better when we get to the 20th century??? I mean, mankind becomes so much more advanced....well at least advanced at killing each other.
Shall I go on? Just to be fair, how about those "Crusades"??? (which in reality was less about Christianity and more about securing wealth) Certainly that had to be the biggest death toll, since according to atheists, most people have died due to "religions". Or how about the "Witch hunts" or the Inquisition? That should really push up the numbers eh?
Wow, I guess the hairless apes have Christians beat when it comes to killing. So you see, the claim that most human suffering has been caused by religion, is just plain false. Don't let anyone use this argument ever again. sources:http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wars18c.htm
|
Cumulus Tag CloudDon't Worry, Be HappySearchTKC Optimal Search Poll |
"Even so, Christianity as it
"Even so, Christianity as it was espoused by Christ is non-violent." It doesn't matter whether the murderous christians are supported by the peaceful ones or not. That they claimed to be killing in the name of christianity automatically attributes those deaths to christianity. Same with Islam, or any other religion or cause. Peaceful followers don't cancel out violent acts committed in the name. It only takes one bad egg to ruin an omelet.
Well, many of those deaths
Well, many of those deaths are more communism, than atheism. People aren't communists because they're atheists, they're atheists because they're communists. For Communist China's death toll, just because there is no religion, doesn't mean it's atheism either.
Also consider this random fact that Stalin also studied to be a priest of 5 years.
"Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness."
Much of these death tolls are ill-bred in blaming atheism. Such as the Afghanistan one with the Soviet Union "imposing atheism". Considering the fact that these tolls also include blaming the PRC with imposing atheism on Tibet and such, it doesn't make much sense that the PRC was on the opposition side of those skirmishes.
Some examples of large scale Christianity caused deaths:
Taiping Rebellion
20,000,000 - 40,000,000
Colonial Conquests:
20,000,000
This also fails the mention the amount of Slavery related deaths caused by Christianity and Christians themselves. How many? Over ten million as far as history can tell.
The Thirty Years War
8,000,000
France: Catholic vs. Huguenot
2,000,000 - 4,000,000
A majority of Jews consider themselves as a religion rather than a race too, in that sense, World War II had a large religious aspect to it. Even if you don't consider this true, Hitler hid behind the banner of Christianity, which many of his soldiers used too. As Hitler rose to power, he was consistently supported by the Catholic church.
Declaring WWII a non-religious war is a completely biased statement that many would argue.
If one is the believer of the stories in the Bible, we can easily enlarge these deaths by a large sum. (Such as the Worldwide Flooding)
Ultimately, these are only SOME the large scale deaths, include the many smaller scale deaths (hundreds of thousands) and the figure rises drastically.
Besides, even if one were to completely ignore this, and declare "Christianity has killed less people than anything else"
A lesser evil is still evil, and isn't Christianity a religion that is against these kinds of slaughters?
Not only that, isn't the main question here "Were most human deaths caused by religion?", should we add the death tolls of those many other religions such as Islam, Hinduism, etc. into this? That itself would easily increase this by well over a hundred million.
Also this article just divides everything into 2 causes. Either it was Christianity or it was something else. It just blends every single death that isn't completely Christianity related together. Religion does cause the most deaths if you have enough will to actually separate everything into categories. Such as famine, politics, land, resources, power, etc. And many of those have a relation to religion anyway, using religion as an excuse is still using religion as a cause.
According to the
According to the Encyclopedia of War by Philip and Axelrod, religion has only been the cause of 7% (all religions) of war. Most intriguing, non-religious, secular, and disease related causes were listed as? the most destructive in terms of lives lost.
Religious Wars
Vic, I have two questions for you:
1. Given your worldview, by what standard do you declare anything to be evil?
2. Shouldn't we judge a religion by its teachings, and not by its abuse?
One could place the blame for all deaths throughout history on man's rebellion against God (see Genesis). And the worldwide flood of Noah's day––was not a war and was not perpetrated by men.
Also, the subject really should be more clearly defined, and I think that the definition should be expressed differently. Really, we are talking about the world religions, Christianity (not a religion in the traditional sense––at all), and the actions and views of atheistic and humanistic thinkers (man as the measure of all things). Throughout history, men have used religion to work towards their own ends. And I don't think many would deny that. Not many would deny that those same people also hated religion and acted in direct defiance to the teachings of that religion. But *using* religion, and *because of* religion, are two different things. You seem to want to paint with a wide brush when it comes to religion, but exempt the actions of other atheistic/humanistic dictators because at some point in their lives the were *religious* or used the name of God in a form that wasn't blasphemous.
This is a subject of interest to me. Do you get follow-ups Vic? Talk to me!
Let's stick to Facts and not Dogma
First of all the assertion that none religious conflicts are the main cause of death is simply a lie. Let's not talk about war, let's not even talk about any particular religion; if you do real, unbiased research you'll find that disease, famine, poverty, and murder make up a small percentage of unnatural death in comparison to deaths in the name of religion, by religious individuals, for ritual sacrifice, and religious wars. When you combine ALL unnatural deaths in the past two millenia, then divide them into religious (meaning someone or a group who perpetrated the act was religious whether occultism or otherwise) and in the other group nonreligious ( meaning the motive for the act was not motivated by a religious belief, ideology, or group) you'll find that the majority of unnatural death has been perpetrated by those who claimed to have the favor of god, believed themselves to be an incarnation of god, were apart of a cultural or ideological group that had religious leanings, or came from an oppressive and divisive religious background.
I care very little for any religion. Though some have brought a few good deeds to the table the giant elephant in the room which is the history of bloodshed, slavery, ritual sacrifice, genocide, mass murders, most wars, witch trials, the holocaust of not only the jews but the native american peoples from north, central, and south america; the systemic purging of the aborigenese from Australia, and the breaking of all human rights edicts we have today.
Don't talk as if religion is all good and don't deny the fact that religious people of ALL faiths on ALL continents in ALL cultures have contributed to this bloody mess, including and especially your own.
Facts Over Dogma?
Dupress: •• "Let's not talk about war..." ••
In other words, let's change the subject... Even so, I don't believe that you are being unbiased, but do believe many of your assertions to be rather arbitrary and unsubstantiated, as well as false. One argument against your claims would be the 50 million abortions that have been the result of––religion? No! Are the epidemic levels of STD's, and most notably AIDS, the result of religion? No! How about the breakdown of marriage and family? NO! Are their many religious groups (Christian and non) who feed the poor and provide them with shelter, and provide aid to those in need all over the world, and establish hospitals and schools? Yes. How about charitable contributions? Emphatic YES! Are the murders that we see committed all across the US the work of religious zealots? No! But what are all of these religious deaths you speak of, how general is your definition, and are you assuming that all beliefs (even those that don't appeal to a god) mean that a person is not an atheist? Is that what you 'believe'? If they make an appeal to an absolute moral standard (like you appear to be doing), does that make them 'religious'? How about those who commit their heinous acts under the 'guise' of religion? You paint, as most atheists do, with broad strokes...
When you say that you have done 'unbiased' research. I think you lie.
What Hitler did was NOT for the cause of religion. What Stalin and Mussolini did, were not because of religious convictions. Was Mao a religious zealot? What about Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, or Kim Jong II for that matter. What kind of specific examples from the past 2 thousand years can you provide (That don't involve the worlds most destructive religion––Islam)? When you tally up the numbers (Including Islam), does it exceed the total of the perps and acts I have mentioned here? The Salem Witch Trials? Well, there is at least 25 victims! (A tragedy still, but by comparison...) Also, the Jewish holocaust was not because of Hitler's religious convictions. And how is the 'holocaust' of the North American indians the *result* of religion? (I confess, I haven't studied that area very heavily, so I can't say that I've heard that argument before.) And slavery? The concept of some people being less human than others is an evolutionary concept––not a religious one, least of all a Christian one. And was the systemic purging of the aborigenese from Australia a religious thing? Much of the reality of those events appears to be somewhat gray.
No one that I know of talks as if religion is 'all good'. (As stated in my previous post.) Never met a person who would make that claim––at all––ever. I would argue that all false religions are 'not good', though most of them share/have some 'good' aspects.
And besides that, what is your complaint? Are you saying that killing is somehow *morally* wrong? Where do our rights come from? If there is no God, there are no absolutes, no right and wrong, no human 'rights' at all. All you have is majority consensus or power. Some of histories most notorious dictators understood that!
Finally, "including and especially your own." I beg your pardon, are you talking to me? I will grant you that the RCC (I'm no Catholic) has committed numerous atrocities in the name of Christianity (as have other so-called 'Christian' cults), but if you have some examples of biblical Christianity (especially within the last 2,000 years)––I would like to investigate those.
Another typical Christian hater in the guise of an "atheist"
Also consider this random fact that Stalin also studied to be a priest of 5 years.
"Atheism itself isn't a principle, cause, philosophy, or belief system which people fight, die, or kill for. Being killed by an atheist is no more being killed in the name of atheism than being killed by a tall person is being killed in the name of tallness."
Much of these death tolls are ill-bred in blaming atheism. Such as the Afghanistan one with the Soviet Union "imposing atheism". Considering the fact that these tolls also include blaming the PRC with imposing atheism on Tibet and such, it doesn't make much sense that the PRC was on the opposition side of those skirmishes.
Some examples of large scale Christianity caused deaths:
Taiping Rebellion
20,000,000 - 40,000,000
Colonial Conquests:
20,000,000
This also fails the mention the amount of Slavery related deaths caused by Christianity and Christians themselves. How many? Over ten million as far as history can tell.
The Thirty Years War
8,000,000
France: Catholic vs. Huguenot
2,000,000 - 4,000,000
A majority of Jews consider themselves as a religion rather than a race too, in that sense, World War II had a large religious aspect to it. Even if you don't consider this true, Hitler hid behind the banner of Christianity, which many of his soldiers used too. As Hitler rose to power, he was consistently supported by the Catholic church.
Declaring WWII a non-religious war is a completely biased statement that many would argue.
If one is the believer of the stories in the Bible, we can easily enlarge these deaths by a large sum. (Such as the Worldwide Flooding)
Ultimately, these are only SOME the large scale deaths, include the many smaller scale deaths (hundreds of thousands) and the figure rises drastically.
Besides, even if one were to completely ignore this, and declare "Christianity has killed less people than anything else"
A lesser evil is still evil, and isn't Christianity a religion that is against these kinds of slaughters?
Not only that, isn't the main question here "Were most human deaths caused by religion?", should we add the death tolls of those many other religions such as Islam, Hinduism, etc. into this? That itself would easily increase this by well over a hundred million.
Also this article just divides everything into 2 causes. Either it was Christianity or it was something else. It just blends every single death that isn't completely Christianity related together. Religion does cause the most deaths if you have enough will to actually separate everything into categories. Such as famine, politics, land, resources, power, etc. And many of those have a relation to religion anyway, using religion as an excuse is still using religion as a cause.
LOL spoken like a true anti-Christian atheist. WW2 had NOTHING to do with religion. In fact in 1933, the Jews declared war on Germany FIRST by boycotting her. Thats an act of WAR. What did that have to do with religion? A vast majority of European Jews are actually atheist, which is ironic in that they build their homeland on the birthground of 3 of the world's large founding religions.
Your entire post is literally nothing but drivel. Really, famine, politics, land, resources etc?
I would love if I could read ONE atheist say the following, "MONEY is the root of all evil. MONEY and GREED are what have caused war and suffering. MONEY is the one god that everyone on earth worships equally. Religion like many other excuses, is the avenue by which those who rule get the plebs to support their cause.
Look at USA, why did it attack Iraq and kill over 1 million? Not to mention the war crimes of Blackwater. Was that for religion? Oil? Greed? How did it manipulate its people? Your freedoms and liberty are at stake yada yada?
If the plebs were better educated, isntead of being so easily indoctrinated (and literally liberal indoctrination is a huge problem in the west). The world would be a far better place.
Any new faith comes along, they are ALWAYS pushing for liberalism. Such as Marx and ENgels with their Marxism, how many deaths did that result in?
Lutharism, pushing for a more liberal form of Christianity, caused how many deaths?
Why is it that Europeans have always fallen prey to crazy extremists who push these idealogies that cause nothing but conflict? Atheism is just again, ANOTHER such idealogy. It is fact that Europeans have waged war, killed and murdered each other far more then anyone else has.
Stop falling for these bullshit politics that divide you amongst yourselves. Stop being indoctrinated by the white guilt complex! This is why there are whacko Christian Zionists in the first place! Genocide and slavery happened EVERYWHERE on earth. Stop being manipulated by the guilt of your forefathers and revel in the fact that our countries are the most multicultural and religiously diverse countries on EARTH, despite what the atheists keep saying in their hatred against "religion" but in reality its always focused on Christianity.
Another intolerant Christian calling for Tolerance
You're completely wrong. What the other gentleman said was completely true and factual but if you're too sensitive to hear the truth don't come onto a website such as this.
ALL religions are divisive, intolerant, and hypocritical. You think atheism is what you call "christian haters" I say we are the sane trying to reach the insane and this is the result, a dialogue that won't end til the other side gives and the fact is truth is on the atheist side.
statistics
I'm doubtless nitpicking,but the figures for the casualties in the witch hunts sound rather low. The Encyclopedia Americana considers 15O,OOO a conservative estimate. An investigation by the German government,released in 1989,revised German deaths in the expulsions downward to 6OO,OOO. An investigation by the German clergy came up with lower numbers than that. The killings in the Sudan probably have something to do with religion,as the first genocide--before Darfur--was a campaign by a fanatical Islamist regime against Christians and polytheists.
Futile endeavor/Unknowable
Hello,
Just a couple of things and some suggested reading. First off, non-violence should be the goal of all humanity and not rest on the shoulders of one religious ideology. It is our joint responsibility as human beings to peacefully coexist and this can happen no matter what one believes. Where im coming from, is i happen to be an agnostic. Im currently pursuing my Ph.d at Dalhousie University in Canada in philosophy. That being said, I dont know everything. Nobody has all the answers and it is up to the individual to think for themselves and to continuously ask questions. I could drone on and on but i dont want you to get bored with reading what i have to say haha.
Ill just quickly take issue with a couple things you say in your piece, which for the most part is fairly well thought out and not without its points! I like that you point out that christianity is based on non-violence. For the most part, it is, except for numerous instances of homphobia, genocide, infanticide, misogyny etc present in the old testament. The core teachings are about non-violence, which obiously i can support. I think you can agree with me that a lot of christians today border on fundamentalist and arent interested in working out their differences peacefully like you and i. Thats why my first piece of suggested reading for you is an essay entitled "The worth of christianity and the unworthiness of christians" by the russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev. But you also say that Islam is based on forced conversions by the sword etc. How have you come to this conclusion? Obviously, I am not a muslim either but they deserve our respect even so. Islam is much the same as christianity. Not only are they derived from the same man (Abraham) but both groups have lost their way in the last thousand years or so. The original sermons from the prophet muhammad are all about peaceful coexistence and respect for fellow human beings. Actually, in the time when Islam made its greatest territorial gains, forced conversions were not part of the plan. For you see, they had in place a non-muslim tax, where they would levy additional taxes on jews, christians, zoroastrians etc. It was not in their financial self interest to convert the conquered people for they would be losing money if they did so. Their conquest was driven mostly by a thirst for knowledge but also by monetary concerns as i alluded to earlier. So no, islam is not based on violence and in fact is based on the total opposite, but it has fallen victim to the perversion of their faith that christianity has suffered as well. The second fantastic read that I wholeheartedly encourage you to undertake is called "Lost History" by Michael Hamilton Morgan. Its esssentially the story of the development of Islam and the harmonious coexistence between them and christians that was enjoyed for many many years. They were after knowledge and not motivated by intolerance. Some of the scientific acheievements highlighted in the book are astonishing such as Ibn al-Haytham and his calculation of the calendar. A thousand years before the Hubble telescope did the same thing with the help of a massive computer, al-Haytham calculated the length of the year correctly up to the sixth decimal place! I fear that my response is way too long and i sincerely apologize. There is just so much to say! I guess ill start with that, and simply conclude by saying there is so much to learn if one expands their horizons and attempts to learn about other ways of thinking. Thought excites me and I eagerly await what the philosopers of the 21st century conclude about the nature of our existence. I know that the universe is a gorgeous place with so much natural beauty that surrounds us. This is why I hate to see people not even attempt to resolve their ideological differences peacefully but instead immediately jump to fighting. I happen to be an amateur boxer as well (not saying im any good) and an outlet like that is extremely healthy to vent frustration. Issues like this one cant be solved in the ring, they have to be solved by intelligent, civil minded and peace-loving people.
Cheers mate,
Matt Day
How can you say WWII isn't a
How can you say WWII isn't a religious war? I don't think the 6 million Jews that got slaughtered were Jews by coincidence.
Just curious, hope you'll answer me ;)
Nice work though. Seems like you put some effort into bringing out your opinion.
Oh, don't forget how many times people have been killed 'in the name of God'.
Yeah..
I'm out.
Take carexxx
WW2 wasn't modivated by
WW2 wasn't modivated by religon.
Race or religion
Hello Pypy. Thanks for the comments and the excellent question. The slaughter of the Jews was more about race than religion. Hitler was specifically concerned with race -- he was attempting to be a master race and not so much to replace or eradicate the Judaism.
Hilter wrote about his hatred of the Jews in his manifesto, Mein Kampf, wherein you'll see it was clearly about race and not about religion:
More practically, Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's defeat in WW1.
For more on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918–19#Aftermath
I hope this helped to show why WW2 wasn't a war about religion.
The flaw of your assertion
The flaw of your assertion is that Judaism isn't a race it's a religion. You simply took a quote from mien kampf and made it look like that was Hitlers only motivation, but you failed to mention the fact that Hitler and many of the Gestapo and the SS were occultist which is another form of religious belief.
Don't mince words and think you're right it makes you look pretentious and ignorant.
Killing in the name of God
Killing in the name of God is hypocrisy.
At least others who have killed in the name of their belief system have done so without compromising a fundamental law of that system.
Thou shalt not kill? Turn the other cheek?
Contribution of Christianity to cause of death
Thank-you for the article. It was very interesting and it is obvious a great deal of thought went into it.
I agree with all the facts presented but I don't think it was complete. Although wars are listed as prime contributors, you have not included the regression and neglect generated by the dark ages. And although it is hard to image now with the modern pluralist beliefs of current Christians, contemporary beliefs held humanity back for nearly 1500 years. It stopped us developing technologies like the power of steam and use of cast iron, which were technologies both available before the first conference of Nicea.
But what has this to do with death you ask, well this neglect set up the environment that allowed superstition and disease to flourish. It held humanity back technologically which allowed the black death to kill somewhere between 100 to 125 million people in the middle ages. It in itself was far worse than all the wars you listed combined. To put it in context, without the cultural oppression and noting that from Watt to Pasteur was 150 years only, this wholesale suffering could have been easily avoided.
This neglect was done in the name of Christianity promulgated through the bible. The death of a third to half the population via a pandemic is a horrific outcome. Horrific because it was made far worse due to ignorance promoted through dogma.
Killing in God's name is not only through direct action , but through the promotion of neglect, misinformation, denial of freedom and through technological oppression.
What worries me is that we seem to have entered another cycle (over the last 9 years) like this promoting the same oppression for the same outcomes. It also seems to be a Christian phenomenon. How long will we have to endure this dark age?
Thoughts?
PS Please don't forget the 250 thousand dead from the two gulf wars.
Dark Ages
Alec, thank you so much for interacting with this article. Your further thoughts are a great addition. It is true that death and general decline or retardation of advancement has been caused by some ideologies, but not Christianity on a whole. Your comments prompted me to write another article. Please read it here:
http://thekingdomcome.com/dark_ages
There are several citations that you may find interesting.
Thanks again.
Religion
The writer doth protest too much, methinks.
Let us mention Columbus, who killed many in the name of jesus, of course.
And forgive me if I am incorrect, but wasn't that jesus again riding out ahead of the "settlers" who murdered the 4 million or so Native Americans back when they showed-up here due to, ahem, "religious persecution?"
I know, they also brought the new world a plethora of incurable diseases, killing many in what we call Central and South America today. And I believe it was pretty much "my way or the highway" for the Native Americans. I point to Franklin's essay, "Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America," where intolerance was king in the form of a Swedish minister.
You may quote all the numbers you wish, my friend. The truth is that Kings and Queens and Popes and other "people of faith," throughout history, have used or abused and murdered their subjets in the name of religion or no religion.
The numbers are not recorded in the millions, but we all know of the intolerance of those who are so "holy" in their own self-righteousness that they chose who would live and die or be "punished" in the name of religion.
Frankly, sir, the absence of all religion would be a huge intellectual boon to the Earth. Believing fairy tales about talking snakes, spare-rib women, and magic fruit from magic trees, as well as all the other nonsense used to explain what people in the early days of evolutionary man did not understand is ridiculous on its face.
Now, I have no quarrel at all with those who believe any of this, regardless of your chosen faith. What I do have an issue with is, one, you thinking that I care about it and therefore bringing it up in discussion, and two, you not keeping this most personal of all personal items, your religion, to yourself. NO ONE cares what you believe, no one wants to hear what you believe, and frankly, if you insist on going on with your fairy tales in public, we shall walk away. You are free to practice any faith you wish in the privacy of your own home or religious establishment. You DO NOT have the right to speak to me about it. You DO NOT have the right to bring it into the political arena in any way, shape, or form. (Check out "religious persecution" in the first paragraph, please.) The fact that you THINK you do is really the key to this entire issue.
You mention that only a "few" million people were killed in the name of religion. I guess where you come from that's considered OK as it is fewer than those humans murdered for "other" reasons. I am CERTAIN that those who died from religious persecurtion feel MUCH better now, huh? Methinks you need some exposure to the discipline of LOGIC, sir.
Postulate: How about ZERO people killed in the "name of religion??"
Not good enough, I guess. Yep, you're right. Religion is blameless when compared to all the other people murdered in history. You WIN!! Feel better?
TO RICH
Rich,
Regardless of your opinion or desires about individuals' rights to talk about religion:
1) YES, everyone DOES have the right to speak about it...and write about it, and discuss it. To anyone and everyone. You, likewise can do the same. No one forces you to read it or listen.
2) YES, everyone DOES have the right to bring it up in a political arena, any time, anywhere, any way they want to. If you think that it is somehow disallowed in our government to discuss religion, you must re-read our constitution and do a little bit of self-education.
Your whole angry diatribe makes me wonder why you are reading this website at all.
To the Rich Man
Thank you Rich for commenting. Please allow me to interact with those comments in detail and hopefully with source reference.
Let us mention Columbus, who killed many in the name of jesus, of course.
You say Columbus killed many in the name of Jesus? From whence do you get your information? Have you ever read the diary/journal of Columbus? You might want to read this other article: http://thekingdomcome.com/columbus Not only did Columbus NOT go about marauding the native Americans, he expressly protected them even against his own men's effort to cheat them in trade.
And forgive me if I am incorrect, but wasn't that jesus again riding out ahead of the "settlers" who murdered the 4 million or so Native Americans back when they showed-up here due to, ahem, "religious persecution?"
Again, where do you get your stats and your information? Please cite some sources.
I know, they also brought the new world a plethora of incurable diseases, killing many in what we call Central and South America today. And I believe it was pretty much "my way or the highway" for the Native Americans.
And you equate unknowingly bringing diseases with intentional murder?
I point to Franklin's essay, "Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America," where intolerance was king in the form of a Swedish minister.
Wait, are you talking about Ben Franklin? In that account, found in part here is indeed an excellent piece on how the Swedish fellow should have communicated more like Paul in Acts 17:16-34, realizing the God provides humanity with the innate awareness of God's existence -- see Romans 1:20, even the so-called "savages". However, the Swedish minister did not pull out a musket and blow the head off of the audience nor did he coral them into cattle cars and ship them off to be gassed like some of the more infamous denies of God did to people.
You may quote all the numbers you wish, my friend. The truth is that Kings and Queens and Popes and other "people of faith," throughout history, have used or abused and murdered their subjets in the name of religion or no religion.
So, what then do you quote if not hard numbers? Demonstrative sources? Citations? Links to real data? Rather you propose assertions which conclude with the very thing we Christians conclude -- that man is DEPRAVED -- with or without religion man abuses man; murders his brothers. Why?
The numbers are not recorded in the millions, but we all know of the intolerance of those who are so "holy" in their own self-righteousness that they chose who would live and die or be "punished" in the name of religion.
Hmmm, if we allow yet another one of your unsupported assertions to stand, if what you say is true; I'd rather take my risks with the group who DOESN'T kill "in the millions". I already am aware of the depraved nature of mankind, including my own nature; however those who say there is no God and instead must think they come from monkeys -- those people I fear more since they are no people at all but merely hairless apes with animalistic tendencies.
Frankly, sir, the absence of all religion would be a huge intellectual boon to the Earth.
Again an assertion with no historical support. The REALITY is that especially Christianity has been the "boon" of intellectualism in the world. It was the Christians who founded most of the original universities in America and the hospitals too. When do you think the hairless apes would have gotten around to that? Why should hairless apes care about hearing the opinions of other hairless apes? Why should they care for any outside their "tribe"?
Believing fairy tales about talking snakes, spare-rib women, and magic fruit from magic trees, as well as all the other nonsense used to explain what people in the early days of evolutionary man did not understand is ridiculous on its face.
But yet instead we are to believe there was a random big bang, caused by nothing that randomly caused the universe to come into existence and that within that universe is a galaxy with supposedly 9 planets and on those 9 planets only one can sustain any life, including mere microbes. And on that one planet, from whence supposedly a primordial ooze gave birth to all living things; "evolves" just one creature with true ability to not only adapt to but modify his standing -- to talk, to create dwellings, language, travel and all such manner of things. Yes, that all seems rather believable compared to any other explanation.
Now, I have no quarrel at all with those who believe any of this, regardless of your chosen faith. What I do have an issue with is, one, you thinking that I care about it and therefore bringing it up in discussion,
You apparently DO have a quarrel with it and do care enough about it to write such a lengthy "protest me doth thinketh" :-)
and two, you not keeping this most personal of all personal items, your religion, to yourself. NO ONE cares what you believe, no one wants to hear what you believe, and frankly, if you insist on going on with your fairy tales in public, we shall walk away.
Really? this is your answer? After deriding that poor Swedish minister of being "intolerant" you say this??? You sound like him now. He shared his "most personal of all personal items" and when the Native Americans shared in kind, he told them much like you are telling me now -- to basically "shut up". He didn't want to hear their "fables". Let me ask, where can me and my kind go as you and your kind insist on going on with your "fair tales in public"?? Be it in our schools as our children are told we came from apes. Or on television when your kind depicts humans as immoral automatons. Or in politics where your kind passes laws that force us to not only accept but finance the murder of unborn babies or homosexual marriage? Where do we go? Into those cattle cars your forefathers did use?
You are free to practice any faith you wish in the privacy of your own home or religious establishment.
Really? should I thank you for your graciousness in this allowance or should I rather assert my RIGHT to practice my belief when and however I please as long as I don't tell you you can't practice yours? Are you an American? Further, I find it pitiful that a mere hairless apes feels he has the authority to tell what he no doubt thinks of others no more than hairless apes what they can and can't do. Because, you know, if I really believed I was a hairless ape; I wouldn't obey any of the arbitrary laws of other hairless apes. You should be glad there are many of us who believe there is God.
You DO NOT have the right to speak to me about it. You DO NOT have the right to bring it into the political arena in any way, shape, or form. (Check out "religious persecution" in the first paragraph, please.) The fact that you THINK you do is really the key to this entire issue.
Again, maybe you don't understand on what principles this nation was formed? Your kind had your chances to form nations based on your godless principles. Your kind loaded people into cattle cars. Your kind slaughtered anyone who would not toe the line. I think I will stick with the principles upon which this great nation was founded and constituted -- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights -- rights not "allowed" by hairless apes threatening us to shut up or be shuttled into cattle cars. Rich, if you hate America so much, please go some other place. There are many places that are governed by the godless principles you desire.
You mention that only a "few" million people were killed in the name of religion. I guess where you come from that's considered OK as it is fewer than those humans murdered for "other" reasons. I am CERTAIN that those who died from religious persecurtion feel MUCH better now, huh? Methinks you need some exposure to the discipline of LOGIC, sir.
I am always eager to gain more wisdom, but my "fairy tale" book tells me wisdom and knowledge begins with a "fear [respect] of the Lord". The Logic I seek, comes from the root word -- Logos and in that same book I read, "In the beginning the Logos was with God and was God". Are you suddenly religious since you speak so much about the Logos?
Postulate: How about ZERO people killed in the "name of religion??"
Not good enough, I guess. Yep, you're right. Religion is blameless when compared to all the other people murdered in history. You WIN!! Feel better?
Rich, you are the one that agrees that man with or without religion is corrupt -- it is demonstrated in history and even moreso when man thinks so lowly of himself and his fellow man; as mere "evolved" animals that they will think nothing of loading them into cattle cars and gassing them to death; making lampshades out of their skin and gloves out of their hair. Who ever said religion was blameless? But I'd rather throw my lot in with the kind that thinks more highly, more noble of our kind -- the hope that such kind will show compassion and mercy even through their own corruption and depravity. I could not and do not expect that kind of "logic" from mere hairless apes. Thanks again for your comments Rich. Take care and be well.