NinerSickness wrote:Yeah, I don't buy your "hateful things about" comparison to Louis f**king Farrakhan. That's like the 75th insane comparison on this thread. What you say is "hateful" could be something completely innocuous and accurate about the religion of Islam; but you lefties defend Islam like it's your baby (despite the violence, child r*pe, rampant ince$t, female genital mutilation, ok to beat their wives, throwing homos off roofs, etc) while walking around with these raging hate-boners for Christianity, despite it being overwhelmingly peaceful and magnanimous in all of its forms today (except for Catholic priests). Give examples of said "hateful things" and show me evidence that Trump was aware of these statements.
that's funny Sick, as a Muslim I've never seen child rape, rampant incest, female genital mutilation. beating wives or throwing people off roofs in my lifetime...
did I miss something? maybe you hang around more Muslims than I do?
Somehow I missed Sick's use of the word "magnanimous" to describe present-day Christianity. That is an incredibly interesting word to describe the Christian religion's approach to the world. Though I think it does likely perfectly capture Sick's view.
The definition: generous or forgiving, especially toward a rival or less powerful person.
Western, Christian people (but please don't call them white) effectively conquered the world, killing millions. They enslaved, raped, and murdered entire groups while seizing their territory. They took whatever they wanted, including stripping many places of natural resources. Much of that was explicitly done in the name of Christianity, including the virtual extermination of American Indians. I don't mean to single out Europeans criticism for that sort of behavior; it's been true of many other conquering groups (Egyptians, Mongols, Chinese, Muslims, Aztecs, Incas, Maori, Japanese, etc., etc., etc.), Europeans just became the best at it.
Having conquered the world over the course of 500-odd years, they divided it as they saw fit. In some cases - primarily those where the original inhabitants had immunity to Old World diseases and were eventually able to effectively resist them to some degree - they eventually gave up the less desirable areas, but they never fully gave up their influence, and never willingly.
Sure, in the last 70-odd years, you haven't seen wars in the name Christianity. But it's not like those Western countries - the US included - suddenly realized the error of their ways and the fundamental incompatibility with the religion to which they professed adherence. They fought proxy wars in third-world countries, using human beings like pawns on a chess board. They overthrew democratically elected governments if they didn't agree with their politics (or, perhaps more accurately, their likelihood to continue to support the commercial interests of the Western powers), often putting in place brutal dictators. When necessary, they went to war to assert or preserve their interests.
But those absolutely WERE NOT Christian wars. Sure, the governments of almost all of those countries were somewhere between 95-100% Christian, but that wasn't Christianity in action. That was politics. No, the Christians were only ever generous and forgiving toward their former subjects, who petulantly rejected the Christians' good will and continue to do so.