When Christianity became a thing, in the first and second century AD, it spread peacefully

>it became Christian through natural methods of spreading peacefully. Again, thats how Christianity spread in its first 500 years or so.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_pagans_in_the_late_Roman_Empire

>Gratian took steps to repress pagan worship; this policy may have been influenced by his chief advisor, Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan.[1][66][67] In 382, Gratian appropriated the income of pagan priests and the Vestal Virgins, confiscated the possessions of the priestly colleges and ordered the Altar of Victory removed again.[69][70] The colleges of pagan priests also lost all their privileges and immunities. Gratian declared that all of the pagan temples and shrines were to be confiscated by the government and that their revenues were to be joined to the property of the royal treasury.

>The anti-paganism policies of Theodosius I began in 381, following the first few years of his reign over the Eastern Empire. Theodosius reiterated Constantine's ban on pagan sacrifice and haruspicy on pain of death. He pioneered the criminalisation of Magistrates who did not enforce the anti-pagan laws. He broke up some pagan associations and destroyed pagan temples.

>Between 389-391 he issued the infamous "Theodosian decrees," which established a practical ban on paganism;[74] visits to the temples were forbidden,[73][75] remaining pagan holidays were abolished, the Sacred fire of Vesta in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum was extinguished, the Vestal Virgins disbanded, auspices and witchcraft punished.

>In 392 he became emperor of the whole empire. From this moment till the end of his reign in 395, while pagans remained outspoken in their demands for toleration,[76][77] he authorized or participated in the killing of pagan priests, destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of reverence throughout the empire[78][79][80][81] and participated in actions by Christians against major Pagan sites.

God you're shit at reading comprehension.

>Since they already ruled the world they obviously didn't need to conquer much; instead they went with the persecution and criminalization of paganism.
What do you not get about this? You're right, they didn't invade Rome, but as soon as the new religion took over they began to persecute everyone else and from that point on they were as violent as anyone else.

You're trying to ignore all of Christianity's history beyond the first few hundred years. The fact is that both Islam and Christianity spread as much by the sword as proselytism. Christians and Muslims both invaded and destroyed other civilizatios, persecuted other religions and fought religiously motivated wars amongst themselves. You can't just dismiss Christian violence by saying 'religion was an afterthought'.

The point is that the Roman state initially converted through peaceful internal means UNLIKE the spread of Islam which was violent FROM THE BEGINNING.

Christians were only around 5% of the empire when it was declared the state religion. After they took power they made paganism illegal and destroyed their temples. Not that pagans treated Christians much better, but don't pretend it was peaceful.

Jesus was a carpenter and the most violent He ever gets is flipping tables at the temple.

Mohammad was a warlord and there are portions of the Koran that literally take place in warzones because FATAL VIOLENCE IS INTRINSIC TO ISLAM.

>*7-10% of the empire

en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Roman_Culture/Constantine_and_early_Christianity

Yes, Islam was violent from the beginning and Christianity became violent later. So fucking what? They both ended up the same way for most of their history anyway. From the 4th to 17th centuries Christianity was as violent as Islam ever was. Islam has existed and been violent from the 7th century to the present, so that basically leaves them both with 14 centuries of violence.

Again, you're just trying to ignore everything Christians have done since 300 AD.

And what does any of that have to do with what I said?

You're saying that Jesus was better than Mohamed? Sure, I agree. That's not what we're talking about.

Their early histories are significant because they reveal the different characters of the two faiths. The practices of the first Christians and Muslims are the product of faith at its most ideologically pure; before it becomes convoluted through sectarianism. On a fundamental level, Christianity is more peaceful than Islam and this is reflected both through their respective sacred writings and the behaviors of their first adherents.

It wasn't peaceful. Look up the Donatists.

Even before the Christian Roman Empire, Christians were known as destructive and suicidal zealots. They would attack pagan temples and kill priests with the intention of being martyred.

Yes we are talking about who is better, Jesus or Mohammad because the faiths these two men founded seek to essentially replicate their personalities in their disciples. Christians are called Christians because they try to live like Jesus Christ and Muslims seek to emulate the behavior of Mohammad. The fact that Jesus was a peaceful man and Mohammad was a violent man goes to the very heart of the division between Christian and Muslims to this day.

That kind of violent behavior misses the mark of the example Christ left for his disciples and therefore cannot be considered orthodox Christian behavior.

>You're trying to ignore all of Christianity's history beyond the first few hundred years. The fact is that both Islam and Christianity spread as much by the sword as proselytism. Christians and Muslims both invaded and destroyed other civilizatios, persecuted other religions and fought religiously motivated wars amongst themselves. You can't just dismiss Christian violence by saying 'religion was an afterthought'.

Your so fucking wrong its laughable, your trying to say that because a multicultural society didn't work in the ancient world that christianity is now violent? Christianity became the majority through peaceful means and after that occurs, the rest is up to human nature (including the so-called wars in christianitys name. Only the Teutonic order is a true example of that). But the religion itself is not inherently violent, and fundamentally, it doesnt teach to convert by the sword, like Islam does. Sure it, doesnt play nice when other religions are present in the same society, but that is true for many cultures and im not saying Christiainity is perfect, far from it.

But there's a big gap between Christianity and Islam when it comes to theologically-condoned violence

>The fact is that both Islam and Christianity spread as much by the sword as proselytism.
This is simply not true at all. Christianity spread through the entire Pagan Roman empire peacefully, Islam invaded it forcibly.

>Roman patriarchate being Christianity after 1054.
>Any event done by the heretics being relevant.

>Jesus was a peaceful man

We don't even know anything about the real historical Yeshua.

Mythical Christ ≠ Historical Yeshua

It is quite likely Yeshua was put to death for inciting open rebellion against the Roman establishment. That he failed and was put to death before achieving anything merely means he was incompetent, not that he was peaceful.

>Christianity spread through the entire Pagan Roman empire peacefully

You can't be serious.

The point is that the Gospels portray Jesus as the Prince of Peace and the Gospels are the foundational texts of Christianity and therefore Christianity is fundamentally a peaceful religion.

The Christians were concentrated in key cities like Constantinople and Rome, and other places like Anatolia. If you include the whole Empire, obviously places like Brittania etc. were still pagan.

Anyway, you didn't disprove my point, it was still within a peaceful and legal means, certainly not an invading army.

Also, your flatout wrong, Christians were persecuted by pagans, the pagans were not exempt from normal human attributes. Christianity caused much societal unrest amongst the pagans. That doesn't mean that a religion is violent because of a culture clash.

That kind of "violent behaviour" was the norm until the Council of Carthage in the 4th century, and only because a large number of influential clergy in the Church were rather cowardly and faced loss of power and face if they kept their warmongering stance.

Up until then, martyrdom by ANY means was held to be a Christian virtue, and to that end, Christians performed suicidal actions such as turning themselves in to authorities and saying they had performed treason, attacking pagan temples and killing priests, purposefully insulting magistrates during court proceedings, etc. Even influential Church Fathers such as Ireneaus largely supported this "martyrdom at any cost", who wrote that "A Christian's death-day is actually his birthday."

Sure. Christianity started off as a much better religion than Islam. Then as soon as it came to a position of power in the world it became a violent, fanatical mess. It only stopped being violent, in the West at least, when the Western world stopped basing everything around religion. It didn't revert back to its original 'purity', it just fell out of fashion.

My problem with you is you're trying to defend Christianity while attacking Islam because the former used to be better than the latter before the latter even existed, ignoring that for the vast majority of history they've both been just as bad. Jesus might have been nicer than Mohammad, early Christians might have been more peaceful than early Muslims, but in the end Christianity and Islam for the most part were equally murderous ideologies.

Praise early Christians if you want, but don't act like there's something inherently better about Christianity as it has existed throughout history.

Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of Christianity and His actions are the ruler by which a Christian is measured. You can cite all the sinners you want but the Gospels depict how a Christian is supposed to behave and when man fails to live up to that standard they have only themselves to blame.

It doesn't matter what your fables say: early Christians demonstrated themselves just as violent and destructive as the early Muslims.

If you had actually bothered to learn even some bit of history instead of coming out of Cuckchan to proselytize.

>don't act like there's something inherently better about Christianity as it has existed throughout history.

There is and it is found through comparing the New Testament to the Koran. The New Testament does not have battlefield scenes because the New Testament offers a life where the battle has already been won.

>death penalty and confiscation of property for any kind of pagan worship at all
>ISIS tier destruction of temples
>peaceful

>Also, your flatout wrong
Reread what I said.

>Islam, at its beginning, was complimented with science, philosophy, good economy, art, sophisticated society, and sustainable governing and thus is a superior religion
>Christianity, at its beginning, was not and thus is an inferior religion
This is how stupid you sound.

Chances are you can't list out the five pillars or tell me the key foundations of Isma'ilism and Sufism, yet here you are running your mouth over Islam. I bet you've never talked to a Muslim either. Protip: keep your mouth shut if you don't know anything about a topic.

Other protip: If you want to look at history with a bias, go back to /pol/ or tumblr.

This is false on every level. The Most violent episodes of Christian History can easily be attributed to other factors, unlike Islam.

>Crusades
Defensive war, initially, and waged by soldiers who were illiterate and had little understanding of the teachings of Jesus, only through what the pope had fed them. Deceived into thinking that if they fight for the holy land they can buy there way into heaven, something which is NOT a part of Christianity, and only made its way into it in the medieval ages because of illiteracy and no education. Compare that to the Islamic groups of today who all read the Quran and are very very religious.

>Colonialism of the world
described in the OP, attributed to mercantilism and pursuit of wealth, not Christianity. Also, the western colonialism was not even bad when comparing to how other societies colonized, like the Japanese

There are only some fringe cases, like the Teutonic order, that occured over a thousand years after Jesus' time, and hence is not an accurate picture of the religion, at times when the populations were not well educated on these things.

The Ottoman empire was more secular than religious and it kept the radical Islam subjugated, but once the Ottomans were toppled, the real religion of Islam has reared its ugly violent head.

No they were demonstrably not as violent as early Muslims. Disorderly conduct is not the same as warfare.

Apple and Oranges my friend, you cannot compare a few nutcases like that (which are probably overblown, its not like its easy to verify ancient sources) to the solid invasion of the half the civilised world, something which sprang up ONLY due to the emergence of a new organized, violent, religion.

Christianity definitely spreads its "meme", no one is doubting that, and it sure caused its own problems, but it was never as inherently violent as Islam has been.

hahaha.

It literally doesn't matter if he even existed. All that matters is what is written down in the bible, and thats what the first century church followed. The first century church mostly had not met Jesus, they followed his disciples and Paul.

And in the Bible he is a peacefull man and thats what the religion espouses.

Christians didn't just ignore the Old Testament you know. If Christianity was based on nothing more than the teaching of Jesus I'm sure it would be great, but you're completely deluded if you think it is.

What you're basically doing is ignoring the reality of Christianity in practice while idealizing what it should be, but hasn't been since its early days. You're saying Christianity is better than Islam because you're imagining a perfect form of Christianity completely detached from the historic reality. Christians and Muslims were both murderous fanatics, but you think one is better than the other because they have a nicer book.

>attributed to mercantilism and pursuit of wealth
Why can't the same be said about Islam?

Do you really think the Caliphs planned their invasions upon where it would be best to spread Islam? That's an idiotic double standard. Like every other civilization in existence, the caliphates sought to exploit economic fortunes and the opportunities thereof.

Every competent historian agrees that the crusades were religiously motivated and were in no way a defensive war. Saying that the crusaders weren't 'true' Christians or some shit is basically the exact same as people claiming ISIS aren't 'true' Muslims. The crusades were pioneered by the Papacy and the priesthood.

Colonialism, especially in its first phase in the Americas where it did by far the most damage, always had a highly religious aspect. You can't ignore this just because other motivations existed. You could ignore most Muslim violence after the initial conquests in the exact same way.

You're also completely ignoring countless other acts of Christian violence, such as the European Wars of Religion (no internal conflicts in Islam ever came close to this), the Cathar Crusade, the Frankish persecution of pagans, the continuous persecution and murder of 'heretics', the religious motivations behind persecutions of Jews, etc.

You're a hypocrite.

>killing pagan priests and worshippers
>trying to dismiss it as "disorderly conduct"

This is why you can't have a conversation with a Christcuck

Not that guy but your post (or posts) sounds really butthurt and makes me want to disagree with you.

>Every competent historian agrees that the crusades were religiously motivated

>ever using "every" to proclaim your opinion is the mass consensus of a controversial topic.

That delicious irony in complaining about muh true scotsman in the same post where you point out his true scotsman belief in "real" christianity. Multiple historians have argued that over and over. Just because you don't like them doesn't make them any less a historian. This is just as false as the user's statement that the pope who deceived the crusaders was never part of Christianity.

Also, he never openly denies that religion was not involved in the crusades (as he adds it was manipulated); but instead makes the point that most of it can be attributed to other factors like mercantilism and expansionary beliefs.

He does make a mistake in only seeing the expansionary spirit of the west though. As Islam was a sort of Arabic Nationalist fury which drove expansion of their interests through war.

But then again, this is far off from the point he was originally making about Christianity spreading through peaceful conversion.

>one-off murders (assuming they even occurred)
>organized conquest

These are not comparable.

>Compare that to the Islamic groups of today who all read the Quran and are very very religious.

The religion is essential to the Islamism, but so are the political factors and identity. Many Islamist groups, according to former Islamists, lure recruits using grievances from history. Sykes-Picot, unconditional support of Israel from the west, keeping troops in Arabia after the Gulf War, Bosnian genocide, Iraq War, drones, collateral damage, etc. Bin Laden said some of these were the main reasons behind 9/11.

Political points and bloody propaganda are often used to convince Muslims that there is a conspiracy against them, and compel them to perform violent actions to establish a 'safe' and expanding muslim state.

It may seem strange, but a lot of Islamists don't know shit about the quran. Many casual muslims with empty lives get emotional over what they see as atrocities against their people and want to take radical action. when a violent interpretation of Islam provides a 'solution' that justifies radical action, they mindlessly devote themselves to it. and they find meaning in their dumb lives.

This accounts for many 'lone wolves' and isis members have reputations of being terrible muslims -- being gay, watching a bunch of porn, drinking alcohol, having premarital sex, etc. Apparently there was a man who got arrested at the airport trying to join isis- he was found with a new copy of 'islam for dummies'.

There's a widespread consensus that the crusades were religious wars and were not 'defensive'. They were invasions of a foreign land that had been conquered centuries ago. They were not aimed at the political power-bases of the Islamic world, nor at the parts that actually might have threatened Christendom. At most, the first crusade was justified by claims to be defending Byzantium (not Western Christendom), which was quickly overshadowed by a quest to take Jerusalem.

This is a widespread consensus that you'll see in any book on the crusades other than a few Christian apologists, hardly competent historians.

Since nobody pointed this out yet: The conquests of early caliphates can hardly be classified as "spreading islam by sword", those were wars for land pure and simple, the islamization of those territories didn's begin until a few centuries later and the Umayyads weren't even hiding the fact they didn't like people getting converted to islam since that meant lesser tax revenue to the state

>Giving actions and events throughout history simple, one sentence reasons
>Hitler was evil!
>Hitler was good!
>The Crusades were entirely religiously motivated by good-hearted men of God
>The Crusades were entirely motivated by secular powerhungry elites wanting more land and a way to get rid of troublesome sons

It's dumb. Historical events have a variety of causes that all coalesce.

>Therefore, it can be said that the religion of Christianity, as defined by the New Testament, is inherently a mostly peaceful one, and the cases where Christians acted in a violent matter can be attributed to human factors.
>It can be said that the Religion of Islam, as defined by the Quran and Muhammad, has an inherent violent nature to it, as evidenced by its actions from its inception, and that the violent actions of its followers can reasonably be attributed to the religion itself, rather than human attributes.

More like
>When Muslims commit acts of violence, they use their religion as an excuse, whereas when Christians do the same thing, they have to get creative and find other excuses for it.

>ninety percent of the empire [before the 4th century] was not Christian, and there is no evidence that Christianity could have continued to grow.
>It was the support of the emperor Constantine that transformed Christianity into a driving force in the Roman Empire.
>In 312, Constantine led an invasion of Italy and was triumphant.

>the support of the emperor Constantine that transformed Christianity into a driving force in the Roman Empire ... Constantine led an invasion of Italy and was triumphant.

>Stories began to emerge that victory was due to the God of the Christians.
>Another conflicting story reports that before the battle, Constantine saw a cross of light in the sky along with the words “By this sign you shall conquer.” “Christ himself then told Constantine to put Christian images on the shields.”
>Regardless of whether or not there is any truth to these stories, or if he had already planned to associate Christianity with his victory as a way to bring the religion under the state authority, this was the jumpstart that Christianity needed.

Religion of peas

...

The difference is Muhammad himself set out to do it, and there are verses in the Koran encouraging it

>entire planet conquered by Christians
just lately
>a few places were conquered by Muslims, all later conquered by Christians

>places under Muslim rule typically permitted to keep their own religion for longer than places under Christian rule
>Egypt was majority Christian for six centuries after it was conquered by Muslims
>southern Africa is majority Christian after only almost a century of Christian rule

>This is just as false as the user's statement that the pope who deceived the crusaders was never part of Christianity.

This is true though, and im not even a Christian. Back then they had this concept where you could literally pay the church money to forgive your sins, but also doing things like dyeing a crusaders death was a gaurantee ticket to heaven. Obviously this is no longer a part of Christianity, and it never was in the first place except when the population was illiterate on the subject.

You don't have to be a christian to be aware of what is Christian.

Your very quick to condemn the crusades yet theres no mention of how the Muslims conquered the Christian Byzantine area in the first place.

There isnt wide consensus, there is argument and debate, and if you read the OP, you will notice he said "initially" implying he was mostly talking about the First and Third Crusade.

And the Crusades were a retaliation from Islamic expansion. The Muslims had most of Spain at that point, had directly attacked Rome itself, were rapidly taking over the Byzantines, and the Crusade at the beginning were started over the Byzantines call for help. On top of this all, Christian Pilgrims were persecuted on their way to the Holy City, which was the nail in the coffin.

Your sounding like a Muslim apologist.

And the persecution of paganism is a bad thing?

Do you honestly think civilization would have progressed and spread to the extent that it has if Christians allowed pagans to exist and spread how they'd like?

There have been dumb susceptible people like this in every society throughout all of history. The difference is that Islam specifically provides that outlet for them to unleash terror and atrocities.

Christianity does not have that kind of "meme" extremist outlet that Islam does. Christianity can be very dogmatic, but it doesnt have the same kind of teaching that gets spread to the population like Islam does.

This is the whole point of this thread. The religion of Islam is fundamentally violent, like no other religion has been.

I would say that Christianity is perhaps a fairly violent religion in comparison to what (little) i know about eastern religions, and im no fan of Abrahamic faiths, but it seems to be considerably better than Islam.

>wanting to exist is wrong
>wanting to spread is wrong

You must hate Christianity more than paganism, surely?

>Do you honestly think civilization would have progressed and spread to the extent that it has if Christians allowed pagans to exist and spread how they'd like?
Yes. Do you have a reason to believe otherwise or are you just speaking out your ass?

>>When Muslims commit acts of violence, they use their religion as an excuse, whereas when Christians do the same thing, they have to get creative and find other excuses for it.

I would agree with this. The former openly acknowledges that the religion is compatible with acts of violence and conquest, and therefore makes it easier to commit such acts.

>places under Muslim rule typically permitted to keep their own religion for longer than places under Christian rule

wew lad...............

Christianity is objectively superior to Islam as far as its impact on culture and law.

Wherever Islam goes, Sharia law will follow. I definitely prefer the liberal west to sharia.

You can't read.

A civilization under Christian rule is objectively superior to a pagan one.

The history of academia supported by the church compared to all those vast libraries of knowledge aggregated by pagans....

Objectively? Because Christians actually succeeded in conquering the world, and succeeded in forcing most of the world to become Christian?

Saying wherever Islam will go, shariah law will follow, is like saying wherever Christians will go, Christian laws will follow.

The liberal west is better than islamic law or christian law. I agree.

OP here, yeah paganism would have been best outcome, we would literally be better off. It would be similar to how Japan is, culture and religion wise. Its just a culture man, except its one that doesn't make human nature sinful and thus introduces intense guilt and shame into the society.

>atheism>paganism>>>Christianity>>>>>>>>>>>Islam

Again, objectively because Christians won in the end? No one genus of paganism have never conquered the world. Christians have.

>Libraries have never existed anywhere outside of Christian nations
wew lad

>The former openly acknowledges that the religion is compatible with acts of violence and conquest, and therefore makes it easier to commit such acts.
Religion only changes the justification given for the acts of violence, not the fact that acts of violence are committed nor the real reason why they're committed.

What are these so called "christian laws"

>forcing
Most people converted man, for the same reason people converted in the first century. Christianity has a powerful message that usually always overtakes paganism, if your living in a world that cannot yet scientifically explain the natural world around you, or your too dumb to understand, which is what was the case in colonial times.

I can meet you halfway here. That's a perfectly acceptable opinion and you are a gentleman and a scholar.

A society that accepts human nature is more often worse off than one that condemns it

>Most people converted man

Yeah, by force.

Oh shit.... you're right....

i guess pagans have a shit ton of academic accomplishments then...

oh wait..............

Why?

Pagan doesnt automatically = barbarian.

The birthplace of Western Civilisation was pagan - the Ancient Greeks and Romans. And the East Asian Countries are "Pagan".

Common or civil law, backed up by monarchs, backed up by the divine right of kings.

Or maybe people who believe in the divine right of kings are true Christians... in that case I take it back. There were /no/ Christians in Europe during the Medieval or Renaissance periods...

Yes, most people converted. It's just that under Muslim rule, this takes place over the course of centuries; the Americas, Australia, and southern Africa prove that under Christian rule, conversion takes place in under a century.

And we have to remember that everywhere conquered by Muslims was conquered by Christians at a later date, it's only that they had a united religious identity which kept them from being converted like the countless religious practices in the Americas, Australia, and southern Africa.

let me break this down for you since youre too retarded to understand

>base holy text of islam tells followers to kill the kaffir
>dogmatic islamic organizations also tell followers to kill the kaffir
>they do

>base holy text of Christianity tells followers to love thy neighbor
>dogmatic catholic papacy tells followers to reclaim the holy land deus vult
>they do

Once Christians learned how to read, they stopped killing people

Once Muslims learned how to read, they kept killing people

This is not a difficult equation...

>Pagan doesnt automatically = barbarian.

It sort of does.

It's what conquering cultures say about the cultures they've conquered.

Pagan is the word for people conquered by Christians; barbarian is the word for people conquered by Greco-Roman civilization.

Christian Rome > Pagan Rome

east asian pagans are more spiritual in nature

>Once Christians learned how to read, they stopped killing people

Do you mean in the Protestant countries? They stopped invading and converting people abroad after they began to read the Bible?

What year did people start to read the Bible, would you say?

Stop embarrasing yourself

You mean
>Once Christians learned how to read, they stopped using religion as an excuse to kill people and started using money and political rhetoric instead.

I'd conjecture that the literacy rate in Europe breached above 50% in the 17th century.

Yet Islam is still being used to kill people

Thanks for proving my point

And after this, Europeans ceased to conquer other people?

This is a map from the end of the C17th, and it appears as though Europeans still controlled foreign lands. How can this be?

I'll say it once more: Religion doesn't cause people to commit acts of violence; It merely gives them an excuse to do so, and if they can't use their religion as an excuse they'll just find other excuses.

Are you implying that Cortes's conquest of the Aztecs was in any way related to Christianity by the sword?

They never even pretended to be spreading Christianity. Priests simply followed them there afterwards and spread the message of Christianity in the conquered lands. The people naturally converted.

The colonization cannot be compared, as its a part of the modern world. It was motivated for different reasons.

It would have happened either way. In comparison, the conquests of Islam would NOT have occurred if not for Islam.
>No Islam? The Saudi cities would have remained a backwater doing nothing
>there would be no Islamic State today trying to create a new caliphate

Islam creates its own wars. The colonization of the world is simply a natural progression regardless of the religion.

No, i would say the absolute number of violent acts are decreased overall if you take Islam out of the equation.

People still act out due to economic and power. But give them religion, and it only makes it easier for them to act, and more numerous too.

More importantly, as another user pointed out, Islam provides an outlet for disaffected young men to act out in a violent way, by joining something that gives them purpose. Ordinarily, these people would not be given an outlet to do these things usually, without Islam.

>implying colonialism was not a natural progression for the world that had an objectively positive effect on increasing the wealth, scientific knowledge, technology and culture of the world

Why are we attacking Christianity (implying it had anything to with it anyway) for Colonialism, when it was a net benefit?

>Are you implying that Cortes's conquest of the Aztecs was in any way related to Christianity by the sword?

Are you implying Spaniards were not Christian during the past five hundred years?

There was no forced or coerced conversion in the Americas?

>priests simply followed them afterwards

I see. If a society has multiple organizations who each take a part of the conquest, exploitation, and conversion of foreigners, it's okay. If a society focuses on one organization to engage in conquest, exploitation, and conversion of foreigners, it's bad.

>Islam creates its own wars. The colonization of the world is simply a natural progression regardless of the religion.

It's only a natural progression for people who want to continue conquering new places. Christians conquered the entire planet.

conquering and colonizing =/= killing as he describes it.

Hes talking about pic related

This stuff isnt justified for money or politics or power, it can only be justified through religion, and its something that Christianity vehemently opposes, hence why its non-existant in Christian societies for a long time. Gays were outlawed and discriminated against, but they have never been killed in the scale they are in the Islamic world

...

>Why are we attacking Christianity (implying it had anything to with it anyway) for Colonialism, when it was a net benefit?

A net benefit?

I believe in the free market, it would have been a net benefit to trade peacefully. Conquering people is a net benefit for the people who conquer.

The industrial revolution was a net benefit to everyone, the presence of cheap energy in coal and oil has benefited everyone.

Oh. He's saying that Christians don't kill gay people.

I guess that's because they live in secular states with rule of law. When they got to set the laws they did a lot of persecution of gay people.

>Christians conquered the entire planet.

No, westerners conquered the entire planet, in an age where there was the secular rule of law, and kings did not have divine right, and the ultimate guiding force was mercantilism and commerce.

They also conquered the planet because they were better at it than anyone else, and it would have happened regardless of the religion.

Islam on the other hand creates its own wars and violent acts to this day

>No, westerners conquered the entire planet, in an age where there was the secular rule of law, and kings did not have divine right, and the ultimate guiding force was mercantilism and commerce.

When would you say that the driving force behind Europe ceased to be Christianity and became 'western values'?

>They also conquered the planet because they were better at it than anyone else, and it would have happened regardless of the religion.

Possibly. Europe is one of a few places that were likely to end up conquering the world.

>Islam on the other hand creates its own wars and violent acts to this day

Then the conflicts between the Christians in the Europe during the World Wars and the Cold War doesn't count? Or the Christian bias against homosexuals and non-Christians was not a matter of secular law in the western world, even to this day? Why not?

1650ish

Oh shit. I guess you're right. Muslim theocracies should be allowed to continue to exist because Christians used to do mean things. You're totally fucking right.

>Conquering people is a net benefit for the people who conquer.

Yeah, the Europeans prospered and hence scientific progress was hearkened, ushering in the industrial revolution. Thats why i said NET benefit, implying there were some downsides too, but overall it was good.

>it would have been a net benefit to trade peacefully
You realise the aztecs attacked the Spanish too right? They lured him into Mexico City intent on killing them all. Both sides were not up for trade, because this wasnt the modern world where that was possible.