Christian Persecution

[Lone Wolf]

Well, Dostoevsky once said something to the effect of "If I find out that the Truth is not with Christ, I'll still stay with Christ, not with the Truth".

 

[Squonk]

Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. We may use terms like white supremacists to describe the, but the term isn't accurate (not that it is to modern day 'white supremacists' either). They don't loathe just non-whites, but non-Christians as well. Its really white Christian supremacism.

To deny that Nazism wasn't white Christian supremacism, to pretend it had nothing to do with Christianity as well is dangerously wrong to me.

this is a church which was used by christians of jewish origin in Warsaw ghetto...

this is one of the person holocausted for being jewish...

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's quite true, but antisemites don't think this, at least not modern antisemites such as the Nazis or white supremacists.

Is it? I imagine that if I was to head back to Kew Gardens and ask many of the orthodox people there what their ethnicity was, they'd certainly say Jewish, and would be very unlikely to say German. The Jewish People had their own language, which was printed voluminously prior to 1945, a nationalist movement, etc. etc.

This is absolutely right. Evidently people believe things for daft reasons, although they may not think them daft. I think that believing things just because you believe them, which is what believing solely for the sake of faith really comes down to, is daft, but that doesn't mean people don't do it. People are driven by many conflicting motives, only some of which are rational.

I believe Lightspectra is saying that they have reasons they believe to be good, that is, just because it's daft, doesn't mean it's not a reason.

 

[LightSpectra]

Is it? I imagine that if I was to head back to Kew Gardens and ask many of the orthodox people there what their ethnicity was, they'd certainly say Jewish, and would be very unlikely to say German. The Jewish People had their own language, which was printed voluminously prior to 1945, a nationalist movement, etc. etc.

It doesn't help that in the early 20th century, the prevailing ideology in central Europe was ethnic nationalism.

Well, Dostoevsky once said something to the effect of "If I find out that the Truth is not with Christ, I'll still stay with Christ, not with the Truth".

Find me the actual verbatim quote plus the context it was given in, and I'll make a comment about it. I'm 99% sure that Dostoevsky didn't consider himself a fideist (and this statement contradicts fideism to begin with, though such as it is...).

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Please differentiate between Christians and Christianity.

You're right. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Constantine's policy was one of toleration for all religions. Besides, Milvian Bridge was 312, not 305; and even after it, Constantine did not control the whole empire.

You realize that you're responding seriously to a joke, don't you?

But what I said indicates exactly the opposite: whatever "revenge" the Christians exacted upon the pagans was far less severe, and certainly far less immediate, than what the pagans had done to the Christians. It may not be fashionable to think that but I'm afraid that's what history says, as far as I can tell.

Ok, let me repeat myself. I do not actually believe that as soon as there was one Christian emperor, that suddenly, paganism was marked for death immediately. The process took hundreds of years. The campaign of anti-pagan persecution did take place. That much is common historical knowledge, so much so that there are no descendants of that religion surviving today. If you want specifics, there were campaigns in the reign of Theodosius I, and Justinian I. It is also common knowledge that Christians also vyed against each other, as they couldn't agree on doctrine, nor peacefully agree to coexist despite their differences, any more than they could coexist with pagans.

 

[Agent327]

Yes, but we were talking about persecutions of Christians and persecutions by Christians, and wondering which were greater, as in, have more people been killed for being Christians than for not being Christians? Cases of Christian-on-Christian persecution are irrelevant to that question, because they fall into both categories (i.e., Christians are the perpetrators, and Christians are the victims).

Obviously more people have been killed for being Christians, but most of the killers were indeed "Christians". I wonder what Jesus would have thought of that...

Paganism wasn't completely ineffective against Christianity. There were some parts of the world where paganism eradicated Christianity. Your latter point is of course perfectly correct, but it's not really relevant.

Some parts of the world indeed: in most parts of the world Christianity has eradicted/assimilated paganism. (Although it might be appropriate to provide an exact definition of what constitutes "paganism" here.)

Ah, I see what you're getting at. You think Socrates was right, that everyone aims at the (perceived) good all the time, and that there is no such thing as acrasia. That's what it boils down to.

I think that's entirely contrary to what experience indicates.

Well, some of us are just die-hard optimists.

 

[Traitorfish]

Obviously more people have been killed for being Christians, but most of the killers were indeed "Christians". I wonder what Jesus would have thought of that...

Presumably.

 

[LightSpectra]

Obviously more people have been killed for being Christians, but most of the killers were indeed "Christians". I wonder what Jesus would have thought of that...

More Christians have died under Stalin, Mao and Hitler combined than any other non-natural causes in history; the first two were atheists, the third had nontraditional beliefs.

 

[Traitorfish]

More Christians have died under Stalin, Mao and Hitler combined than any other non-natural causes in history...

[citation needed]

 

[LightSpectra]

[citation needed]

Here you go. Particularly low estimates given for Stalin and Mao can be ignored for the moment, since even going with the figures of 20 million and 40 million for them, plus 30-some million for the Afro-European front of World War II givens you a total of 90 million. Now, given that China was largely not populated by Christians, we'll say that only 5% of those deaths were to Christians (much lower than the actual figure but roll with it), which still gives us two million, for a grand total of 52 million; a great deal larger than any other non-natural cause ever.

And we haven't even counted the deaths under Japan, the Ottoman Empire, SFR Yugoslavia, the French First Republic, Darfur, etc.

The one challenge I'll accept to this is the Congo under Leopold II of Belgium, who was a Christian, of whom the upper limit of those killed can be 50 million. (Nevertheless, I point out that the Belgian parliament voted to take over the Congo from Leopold's personal possession, given that they perceived him to be ruling the Congo in an unchristian manner.)

 

[aelf]

It's certainly not blind, even if it might be wrong.

Well, the last thing I'm going to say about this in this thread is that no one really says, in full, that "some people believe in something they are told for no reason at all". Rather, people might say that "some believe in something they are told for no good reason", which is often contracted (with enough incidences of it) into "some simply believe what they are told". I'd argue that the last is essentially the same as the second referred to as a tendency because it's pretty much making a trivial point to say that people have their reasons for thinking of something, whether or not they are logically valid or sound. Hence, for ease of conversation, it's entirely legitimate to say that "some simply believe what they are told" to express disapproval over the under-use of their critical faculties.

PS: If you believe that people always adhere to their reason, it would be absurd to say something like some people are wrong for believing for no reason that some others believe in things for no reason. Either people must have reasons for believing that some others believe in things for no reason (which is also absurd in this case) or there must be some nuance missing from the picture.

 

[Squonk]

The one challenge I'll accept to this is the Congo under Leopold II of Belgium, who was a Christian, of whom the upper limit of those killed can be 50 million. (Nevertheless, I point out that the Belgian parliament voted to take over the Congo from Leopold's personal possession, given that they perceived him to be ruling the Congo in an unchristian manner.)

I'm not sure if entire Africa had a population of 100 mln at this time. Entire Congo could have been several milions at this time, max 10 or so.

Anyway, I don't understand you. Hitler's wars, even if he wasn't christian, weren't aimed at persecution, killing of christians, neither was Leopold's behaviour in Congo aimed at destruction of pagans. And great hunger in USSR wasn't deliberate, and even if it was, it wasn't aimed at a religious group, but a social one.

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm not sure if entire Africa had a population of 100 mln at this time. Entire Congo could have been several milions at this time, max 10 or so.

50 million is the highest figure I've ever heard on that matter, so that's probably above the boundaries of realism.

Anyway, I don't understand you. Hitler's wars, even if he wasn't christian, weren't aimed at persecution, killing of christians,

Yes they were. They were aimed at anybody that resisted his concept of German ethnic supremacy, which is to say, Nazism.

neither was Leopold's behaviour in Congo aimed at destruction of pagans.

Leopold's wasn't "aimed" at anybody. He happened to kill a great deal of Christians, and was a Christian himself, and thus is a valid challenge to my rebuttal.

And great hunger in USSR wasn't deliberate, and even if it was, it wasn't aimed at a religious group, but a social one.

Almost the entire figure (20 - 40 million) that were killed by the Soviets were Christian. There were Jewish, irreligious and Muslim minorities in that number but I would be surprised if that amounted to 500,000.

 

[Agent327]

More Christians have died under Stalin, Mao and Hitler combined than any other non-natural causes in history; the first two were atheists, the third had nontraditional beliefs.

Oh dear... we were talking about Christian persecutions, either by pagans or Christians. But sure, modern dictators take the cake...

---

But I see we´re getting terribly off track now...

 

[Racsoviale]

More Christians have died under Stalin, Mao and Hitler combined than any other non-natural causes in history; the first two were atheists, the third had nontraditional beliefs.

I thought it was commonly understood that both Stalin and Hitler were christians, they just downplayed their religious beliefs when it suited them and/or were not especially religious to begin with but chistians nonetheless.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Wonderful. It appears that the thread I created is heading straight for "Closed" status.

 

[LightSpectra]

I thought it was commonly understood that both Stalin and Hitler were christians, they just downplayed their religious beliefs when it suited them and/or were not especially religious to begin with but chistians nonetheless.

I can't tell if you're joking, but both deeply hated Christianity. The former was an atheist and the latter had some bizarre neopagan Norse beliefs, though was largely irreligious.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I can't tell if you're joking, but both deeply hated Christianity. The former was an atheist and the latter had some bizarre neopagan Norse beliefs, though was largely irreligious.

Indeed irreligious, as it was more of an idea as to why the Germans should rule the world. But that's getting way off topic.

 

[Squonk]

50 million is the highest figure I've ever heard on that matter, so that's probably above the boundaries of realism.

waaaaaaay above. I don't know really, but in the net there are conflicting opinions saying that loss of population was something between 15% and 2/3 of the population, the most common opinion is that it was about half of it. I still think that's really much, but it's very possible. However, we don't know how many of the missing people were actually dead, and how many fled. We don't really know how densely populated Congo was anyway. So all numbers, both in percentages and - especially - actual numbers seem to be guesses. The number of citizens of post-Leopold Congo is estimated at 8 mln or so, which would mean the loss of population ranged from 1,4 mln to 16 mln, according to commonly accepted number would be 8 mln or so. Which still looks like a bloated number to me, both when it comes to the overall number of citizens of Congo and the losses, but it possible. As I've mentioned, it includes people who fled etc.

Anyway, these weren't religious persecutions.

Almost the entire figure (20 - 40 million) that were killed by the Soviets were Christian. There were Jewish, irreligious and Muslim minorities in that number but I would be surprised if that amounted to 500,000.

No difference. Most of them weren't killed for being christian / muslim / jewish.

I thought it was commonly understood that both Stalin and Hitler were christians,

Hitler was officially christian, but despised christianity. As I've mentioned in another thread, he's likely seen it as a kind of cultural heritage rather than religion. A heritage he'd likely change, but which's current existance he accepted
When it comes to Stalin, well, claiming he was christian after his youth is really silly.

 

[Dachs]

No difference. Most of them weren't killed for being christian / muslim / jewish.

Why couldn't you have been around for that asinine genocide thread in OT, when somebody actually claimed that the Thirty Years' War was a genocide of Germans

I could've used some friggin backup