CHRISTIANS DID NUFFIN WRONG, DEY GOOD BOIS

Are Christians the original dindus?

Always going on and on about how the "evil communists/atheists/Jews/secularists/revolutionaries/Muslims" killed those poor and surely innocent Christians, while at the same, always downplaying the severity of any violence committed by Christians (even against other Christians, though of course, one side will say "they weren't 'true' Christians!", as if it were some sort of justification).

There's:
-the Persecution of the Paulicians
-the Albigensian Crusade
-the Bosnian Crusade
-the Fourth Crusade/sack of Zara and Constantinople ("but m-muh Pope disavowed it so it's totally fine!")
-the Hussite Wars
-the German Peasants' War
-the Schmalkadic War
-the Thirty-Years War
-the Eighty-Years War
-the (French) Wars of Religion
-the Inquisition
-the Beeldenstorm

There are other examples that aren't 'events', per se, but well known: for example, ultra-reactionary clergy in Spain (and probably other countries) funding (for example, Bishop Juan Soldevilla y Romero) strike-breakers or even death-squads to terrorize lower-class city dwellers, the well-known corruption of the Catholic Church since at least the Middle Ages (seriously, just pick up a history book or even Medieval secular literature), evangelicals donating funds to fundamentalist Christian leaders in Africa that simply cause more suffering for actual Africans, and so on and so on. And then Christians will complain that somebody tried to reduce the influence of their religious either completely or somewhat.

With a track record like theirs, I'd find it hard to disagree that the influence of Christianity (and religion in general) needs to be reduced.

>Christian

Most of what you listed is applicable only to Catholics.

>-the Hussite Wars
>-the German Peasants' War
>-the Schmalkadic War
>-the Thirty-Years War
>-the Eighty-Years War
>-the (French) Wars of Religion

Hardly, considering there were atrocities from both the Protestant and Catholic sides.

Human, All Too Human

Christians are no better than anyone else

>Christians are no better than anyone else

Obviously. That's not what I was stating, however. I stated that Christians like to presume that - as a group, generally - they have done very little (if any) harm or violence when compared to other groups they dislike, such as atheists or Muslims.

Which is completely wrong, of course: ignorance of a certain event does not mean said event did not occur and that people's lives were destroyed because of it.

Yeh.

>"I don't know history"

FTFY

You could have started by mentioning with how Christcucks have built up this myth about "persecution" under the Romans, which was sporadic and unenforced at best. In reality, early Christians would attack pagan temples and riot in an effort to purposefully be arrested int the hopes of being executed and martyred, such that several councils - with the most notable being one at Carthage - were convened to debate on whether it was acceptable to, one, seek out martyrdom purposefully, and, second, if a Christian who had chickened out and had as a result not been martyered could still come back to the Church.

Doesn't every group do that?
Chinese and Koreans on the Japanese
Middle east on Kurds
Armenians on Turks
You on Christians

Can you prove your claims?
Pls provide sources for your claims
A question begging epithet isn't a valid argument

Dont forget
Blacks on Whites
nationalist on jews
Americans on muslims and communist
Communist on capitalist
The world on America

>Doesn't every group do that?

Of course. The issue however lies in that, like I said, most Christians will generally say that "Christians" have done less harm/violence in history than, say, Muslims or atheists, which is inaccurate, and actually born from ignorance. Most people know of Soviet atheism, but few people know about much about the various Crusades (aside from the one for Jerusalem) or the religious wars that plagued Europe for most of the 15th-16th century.

You see it on every thread.

>"ATHEISTS KILLING CHRISTIANS, DISGUSTING!"
>"THE CHURCH WAS A FORCE FOR GOOD IN THE MEDIEVAL AGES!"

And so on and so on.

>"...early Christians sought out and welcomed martyrdom. Roman authorities tried hard to avoid Christians because they "goaded, chided, belittled and insulted the crowds until they demanded their death."

-Ide, Arthur Frederick; Smith, John Paul (1985). Martyrdom of Women: A Study of Death Psychology in the Early Christian Church to 301 CE. Garland: Tangelwuld. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-930383-49-7. apud deMause, Lloyd (2002). "Ch. 9. The Evolution of Psyche and Society. Part III.

>"in 185 the proconsul of Asia, Arrius Antoninus, was approached by a group of Christians demanding to be executed. He obliged some of them and then sent the rest away, saying that if they wanted to kill themselves there was plenty of rope available or cliffs they could jump off."

- Droge, Arthur J.; Tabor, James D. (November 1992). A Noble Death: Suicide and Martyrdom Among Christians and Jews in Antiquity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-06-062095-0. Misquoted as Groge and Tabor (1992:136)

>The New Catholic Encyclopedia states that "Ancient, medieval and early modern hagiographers were inclined to exaggerate the number of martyrs. Since the title of martyr is the highest title to which a Christian can aspire, this tendency is natural"

>The earliest Christian martyrs, tortured and killed by Roman officials enforcing worship of the emperors, won so much fame among their co-religionists that others wished to imitate them to such an extent that a group presented themselves to the governor of Asia, declaring themselves to be Christians, and calling on him to do his duty and put them to death. He executed a few, but as the rest demanded it as well, he responded, exasperated, "You wretches, if you want to die, you have cliffs to leap from and ropes to hang by." This attitude was sufficiently widespread for Church authorities to begin to distinguish sharply "between solicited martyrdom and the more traditional kind that came as a result of persecution"

-G.W. Bowersock, Martyrdom and Rome (Cambridge University Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-521-53049-1), pp. 1–4

>At a Spanish council held at the turn of the 3rd and 4th centuries, the bishops denied the crown of martyrdom to those who died while attacking pagan temples. According to Ramsey MacMullen, the provocation was just "too blatant". Drake cites this as evidence that Christians resorted to violence, including physical, at times, [in order to martyr themselves].

-Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance", H. A. Drake, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-8018-7104-2, p. 403; "Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries", Ramsay MacMullen, 1997, Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-07148-5 p.15

You say of course then complain about Christians

How are you any better than white people who complain abouts blacks and vice versa

And Neo-Nazis that complain about Jews?

You are a hypocrite

For starters, I don't go on about my supposedly divinely-mandated superiority, as you Christcucks do.

That's the difference.

And how does this prove you are right?
It still says they got martyred and it says even the Church won't accept people who attack others just so they can get martyred

>implying I'm religious or Christian
I'm agnostic of jewish decent but nice use of false attributed fallacy

Also your rebuttal is a question begging epithet?

You started a thread that would look like a /pol/ thread if the Christians were replaced with Jews or Black people

A question begging epithet isn't a valid argument

...

The fact that a council had to be convened just to address the issue should speak on the prevalence of early Christians going on and purposefully trying to get themselves martyred.

Sorry, but your 'poor innocent Christians being massacred by the cruel pagan Romans' just doesn't stick once you read and realize it went more like 'fanatic and bizarre cult members purposefully attack temples and other buildings in attempts to fulfill death-wishes'.

>What are the muslims conquests? lol

Newsflash, the world was fucking rough in olden times. Everyone shat, and it all stank. Everyone. Good and evil was around every corner, in every circle. Mostly evil.

So the Church verified if the martyred were martyred because of their faith and even said those who were martyred because they attacked others are not martyrs, But this is somehow wrong of them?

>fanatic and bizarre cult members purposefully attack temples and other buildings in attempts to fulfill death-wishes'.

What does atheism plus and islam have to do with anything?

>it is exactly as reasonable to behave in a primitive, medieval fashion in 1000AD than as in 1940
>christianity is alone in its barbaric behavior in history
nigga everyone massacred

Except that many Christian 'heretics' welcomed the Muslims with open arms, because the Church establishment was stifling, with its persecutions and oppression.

Many part of Egypt and the Levant continued to be Christian-dominant (despite being Muslim ruled) for centuries after the conquests of the 6-7th centuries.

The Paulicians are a famous example of Christian 'heretics' who sided with Muslims against the Byzantine Empire due to the persecution they faced under the Orthodox Church.

You forget that the Buddhist and Hindus didn't welcome them.

That Afghanistan used to be a Buddhist country and the muslim conquest of India.

Lets not forget they went as far as Tibet until they attacked a Mongol caravan

You also forget that the Catholics and Orthodox Church were constantly fighting each other

>You also forget that the Catholics and Orthodox Church were constantly fighting each other
Look at the OP, I mentioned Sack of 1204.

Fighting each other over the semantics and minutae of a myth. What a ridiculous thing to waste one's time and resources over, not even for a good cause.

I like how you avoid the rest of my post

>Fighting each other over the semantics and minutae of a myth
Can you prove its a myth?
>inb4 "I have proof but I'm right anyway"
a question begging epithet isn't a valid argument

Seems Christanity struck your nerve

>Muslim conquest of India
>they literally attempted to wipe out Buddhism because it was too much competition

Correction
*I have no proof but I'm right anyway*

Their is a reason Sikhs dont like muslims

>Mommy dragged me to church
>I'm the true persecuted victim!

*there*

Pretty much this

>Some pastor/priest told me these stories about virgin births and magic resurrecting zombies are literal truth
>"Everyone who dares attack my religion will burn in Hell!"