10-01-07, 11:39 PM #41
10-02-07, 12:34 AM #42
10-02-07, 12:48 AM #43
10-02-07, 07:17 AM #44
If you mean the Europeans, that's more about xenophobia than religion. Certain powers decided that Jews didn't belong in Europe, so tried persecuting them until they left. But the holocaust cause some guilt, so they formally gave the survivors part of Palestine, which was conveniently controlled by a European power at the time and already had some Jewish immigrants.
That way, they assauged their guilt but still had a mostly Jew-free Europe. Win win!
10-02-07, 07:49 AM #45
10-02-07, 08:11 AM #46
Well yes. I should add that I don't think Europeans are more inclined to be racist than other people, but there are political powers that use racism to their own purposes, as happens everywhere.
Past European racism has done more damage, but this doesn't mean other racists didn't exist, it was just that the European racists had the most power at the time.
10-02-07, 10:24 AM #47
It's a mixed bag: Europe shouldn't have been in the business of suppressing North Africa; then again, the Barbary pirates probably should have not raided Europe and European shipping, especially not after concluding treaties with them. (Come to think of it, I think that's in Sura 9 - treaties, that is.)
11-01-07, 01:51 AM #48
Interesting topic...it appears you both may be right.
True, the TERM "Christian" is first found recorded as being used by the general public to describe the followers of Christ around 42 AD. This is according to the aforementioned source - Acts 11:26.
It is also possible that Catholicism was the first Christian SECT, though no source was cited to support this widely accepted view, and though no further thought was given to consider how that label was applied it's nonetheless possible.
However, just because the term "Christian" is first recorded in Acts 11:26 as having been used somewhere has absolutely no bearing on whether it was used to define a sect. The source cited supports the assumption that it was used to define a group of individuals. A loosely used term at first, and then later solidified as the early "church" became more organized.
The applied label of "Christianity" is widely accepted as being first applied to the Catholic Church, but this does not neccessarily mean that it was true in the beginning. Things don't just begin with labels, otherwise I can make up a good brand name like Nike and get rich off of selling sneakers with it. One precedes the other.
Such a label must be regarded as retroactive if not supported by at least one source from that era, for it is simply impossible to know if it is truely retroactive terminology or not without some source supporting the belief.
But aside from all that, "terms" and "sects" aren't exactly similar things, so there's really no conflict here. They are both probably right. But one has a source cited. The other doesn't, though I'm sure somebody can find one.
So are catholics and christians the same bunch? I don't know...I can't exactly read minds to know for sure. The individual defines that, not the mechanism or the observer.
The Crusades were probably a combination of both, and given the type of speeches used to stir the masses into action, they were most likely ignorant of the fact as well. Religion tends to prey on the ignorant.
"Prove all things, hold fast that which is good".
Since I am regarded as being a "Christian" I responded to this seemingly interesting and wieghty discussion knowing full well that it really doesn't matter.
Religious history is like shit; you can polish it, but you can't make it shine.
By Tiassa in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 04-29-07, 03:50 PMReplies: 11
By Vega in forum Earth ScienceLast Post: 04-08-07, 01:50 AMReplies: 3
By lixluke in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 03-31-07, 11:06 AMReplies: 9
By r0kan in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 06-16-06, 11:34 AMReplies: 41